Which of the following illustrates the concept of a negative externality? a. A college professor plays a vigorous game of racque
t ball with the racquet he recently purchased. b. A flood wipes out a farmer's corn crop. c. A college student plays loud music on his new stereo system at 2:00 a.m. d. A janitor eats a hamburger during his lunch break.
c. A college student plays loud music on his new stereo system at 2:00 a.m
Explanation:
Negative externality can be said to occur when the cost of consumption of a good consumed by an individual is imposed also on a third party. In order words, consumption of a good results also in a negative effect on a third party.
For example, out of the options given in the question above, the option that best illustrates the concept of negative externality is option C, “A college student plays loud music on his new stereo system at 2:00am”.
The consumption of the new stereo system will produce an unpleasant effect and irritation to other neighbors as the college student plays loud music at such odd time of the day. This noise pollution that the new stereo system causes is the negative effect other people around him suffers as the third party.
The answer to this question is C. A college student plays loud music on his new stereo system at 2:00 a.m
Explanation:
Negative externalities occur when the consumption or production of a good causes a harmful effect to a third party.
From the question above, the negative externalities is c. A college student plays loud music on his new stereo system at 2:00 a.m because the loud noise is causing harm to his neighbor (third party) at a time they are suppose to be sleeping.
Since both Hinduism, as well as Buddhism, are Dharmic religions, they usually accept each other's practices and many people practice a combination of both. In 2015, a new constitution was adopted and granted equal rights to all religions in Nepal. However, influencing others to change their religion is prohibited.
That should be true. An Ethical Dilemma has multiple outcomings depending on the persons choice on how to follow through with the situation, yet every outcome seems to bring certain downsides with it. for example: a train is rushing towards a group of people. Do you pull a lever to change the trains direction and kill only one person ? Neither of the outcomes are ethically acceptable / satisfying.
