Depending on how many could have taken the survey, it would be a random sample of the population of triathletes. However, if these surveys were conducted at a single event that was in an area where only a small range or area of triathletes attended, it may not be a good random sample.
Answer:
Difficult but if you are try it will be easier to you
Answer:
not make sense as long as Xenophobia had a comparative advantage in any good.
Explanation:
Comparative advantage is when a country has a lower cost of production of a good compared to other countries. The country will be able to produce more than it needs and have excess for export.
So if Xenophobia has comparative advantage in for example yam production, and meets its local needs while having excess. It will make no economic sense to waste this excess. Instead it will be better to export the excess and make money for the country.
Answer:
That low income can be enough because of either one of these two reasons (or the two at the sime time):
- A high proportion of subsidized good for low-income earners in developing countries: a consumer making $1,000 per year on average could benefit from subsidized food, housing, healthcare, and even transportation, allowing this person to devote most of his income to other expenses.
- Cheap credit available: this same person could not have enough money to pay for the television in cash, but could easily obtain a credit with low interest rates, and long-term payments.
