The actual overhead incurred = $98,500
The overhead applied = 34000 * 1 ( $1.75 + $1.50) = 34000*1*3.25 = $110,500
The budgeted overhead = 34000*1*$1.75 + (35000*1*1.50) = (34000*1*$1.75)+52500 = $112,000
A) The total manufacturing overhead cost variance = Overhead applied - Actual overhead = $110,500 - $98,500 = $12,000 F
Answer:
d. $920 increase liabilities, increase expenses
Explanation:
The journal entry is given below:
On March 31
Interest Expense Dr. $920 ($92,000 × 4% × 3 ÷ 12)
To Interest Payable $920
(being interest expense is recorded)
Here interest expense is debited as it increased the expense and credited the liabilities as it also increased the liabilities
Therefore the option d is correct
Answer: A. Expansionary fiscal policy, increase government expenditures by $100, or cut taxes by $200.
Explanation:
Recessionary gap = $200
Marginal Prospensity to Consume = 0.5
Spending multiplier will them be calculated as:
= 1/(1-0.5)
= 2
Tax multiplier will be:
= -0.5/(1-.5)
= -1
Therefore, the answer is option A"Expansionary fiscal policy, increase government expenditures by $100, or cut taxes by $200"
The phenomenon experienced by the client when he believed that the performance appraisal was unfairly influenced by a drug error that the employee committed several weeks ago, is called the Horns Effect.
<h3>What is the Horns Effect?</h3>
The Horns Effect is a rater bias property in performance appraisal at workplace. It is a tendency for a single negative attribute to influence the rater to mark everything on the lower side of the scale. It is a bias that makes them think that one bad attribute seems to spoil the bunch.
It is the exact opposite of Halo Effect and makes decision making challenging. Horns Effect may lead to unfair sanctions or inappropriate dismissal of the employee.
To know more about Horns Effect, visit:
brainly.com/question/988504
#SPJ4
