Answer:
Refer below.
Explanation:
Answer is intended both & Done.
This is incomplete because the question is missing, here is the missing question and options:
Which phase of team development does this situation describe?
A. Performing
B. Norming
C. Forming
D. Storming
The answer to this question is B. Norming
Explanation:
In team development, norming is the third stage in the process of creating a team and making its members work together. This stage occurs after members have known each other (forming) and had solved their problems (storming). Due to this, during this stage members are able to work together and there are clear roles, which facilitates communication and adaptation. This stage is the one described because roles have been defined "everyone is taking on leadership functions related to their roles" and it seems the integration after three months facilitates communication and changes "report back to the rest of the team and smoothly adjust the project plan."
Answer:
Weak because of proximate cause is difficult to prove in absence of other similarly affected individuals
Explanation:
Since in the question it is mentioned that the 60 year old man have a lung cancer so he sues the asbestos manufacturer also he trust that it is unsafe as her friend who use the alternative material has not have a lung cancer so here the case would be weak as of proximate cause as it is difficult for proving it
Therefore the same is to be considered
Answer:
<u>is not</u> , <u>consume more of hamburgers</u>
Explanation:
A consumer is said to have achieved equilibrium when within his budget constraint, he purchases that combination of two goods which yield maximum satisfaction to him.
The equation for consumer equilibrium for two products is given by

In the given case,
=
=
= 6.666
=
= 8
wherein, x= pizza
y= hamburger
As is evident, the marginal utility per dollar spent is greater in case of a hamburger, the consumer is not in a state of equilibrium.
Thus, he should consume more units of Hamburgers in order to maximize his utility.
Answer: d. Products the consumer could have bought instead of cigarettes.
Opportunity cost refers to the loss benefits from the choices a person would have made if he or she had not made a particular choice.
Opportunity cost is also known as alternate cost.
In this question, had the consumer would have spent on other products if he had not bought cigarettes. Hence these products represent the opportunity cost of cigarettes.