Answer:
All of the above are true.
Explanation:
The law of diminishing returns was first formulated by the classic economist David Ricardo. It presupposes a technical relationship between input and output, which is not scientifically demonstrable but only empirically. In practice, in a generic production system, at any contribution of any factor, that is, land, labor, capital, machines, etc. there is no proportionally increasing production increase.
Normally it is assumed that the law does not always come into operation but only when the variable input exceeds a certain threshold. For example, the increase of workers on an assembly line certainly allows a proportional increase in production, but only until the entire system begins to suffer from malfunctions due to logistics or work organization, precisely because of the its getting bigger. Large industrial plants have shown that they must be divided into sections, however coordinated, precisely because of the decreasing returns. This is because the increase in the number of workers and the mass of the plants does not correspond to a consequent increase in production.
Answer:False
Explanation:It is not obvious which cost structure is better, both have advantages and disadvantages
Answer
The answer and procedures of the exercise are attached in a microsoft excel document.
<em>You didn´t post the complete information of the exercise, I searched the exercise online and tried to ask the most useful question.</em>
<em>
</em>
Explanation
Please consider the data provided by the exercise. If you have any question please write me back. All the exercises are solved in a single sheet with the formulas indications.
Answer:
1. <em>If this law of contributory negligence applies to the state, then Ramona will receive no compensation for the damages she sustained. </em>
<em>
</em>2<em>. If this law of comparative negligence applies to this state, then Ramona will get 100% - 20% = 80% of the damages incurred in the accident, from John which will be $80,000</em>
<em />
Explanation:
In contributory negligence, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.
<em>If this law of contributory negligence applies to the state, then Ramona will receive no compensation for the damages she sustained. </em>
<em>
</em>
In comparative negligence, the plaintiff's damages is award by the percentage of fault that the fact-finder assigns to the plaintiff for his or her own injury i.e the plaintiff's damage compensation is reduced by percentage of his/her percentage of fault.
<em>If this law of comparative negligence applies to this state, then Ramona will get 100% - 20% = 80% of the damages incurred in the accident, from John</em>
this is 80% of $100,00 which is equal to <em>$80,000</em>
