Answer:
B. Dominant Strategy
Explanation:
A dominant strategy is one in which the individual wants higher payoff regardless of its others choice. In this strategy the individual does not consider what other players strategy is. They are looking for maximizing their returns.
In the given scenario Joe is also considering dominant strategy as he is not concerned with what strategy Sam will follow. Joe wants to keep its price at $3 per gallon even if Sam cuts the price.
<span>Some people consider mutual funds a more convenient investment than stocks or bonds because </span>owning an individual stock would carry more risk than a mutual fund. The type of risk is unsystematic. Unsystematic risk means that by owning just one stock, you would be carrying company risk that may not apply to other companies in the same sector of the market.
Answer:
Option D is the correct option
Explanation:
The bargaining power of the supplier is only high when the products of other supplier are not highly differentiated, presence of fewer suppliers of the product, fewer substitutes are possible and the costs of the existing supplier are high (Rivalry would be low). All this constitutes to competitve advantage to a firm if its product possesses differentiation, its products can be substituted, possesses greater control over costs, etc. So the only option that matches this criteria is option D.
Answer:
Police uncertainty
Explanation:
In the case when the diamza government pased the law that the foreign company wants to do the business so here it only use the raw materials and only hire the citizens so it represent the uncertainty of the police that faced by the companies wanted to conducted the business
So the same should be considered and relevant
Answer:
Option B. He will win
Explanation:
If Samuel is desiring to sue his employer in a circuit court because he thinks that the employer was negligent then he will have to sue under negligence Act, which says that the employer is obliged to take all necessary precautions and if found negligent then the court may apply contributory negligent theory as well as comparative negligent theory. These two negligent theories means that the employer was partly responsible for injury, which means that this would result in compensation to Samuel.
Hence it is more likely that Samuel will win the case.
