Answer:
A simultaneous game was played between a shoplifter and a security guard.
The answer to the game was answered in accordance to the question stated above,
There is no Nash Equilibrium in the game, The shoplifter does not steal in this case, Does not steal, The security guard will be watchful, The security guard ill sleep on the job.
Explanation:
Solution
Given that:
Let our matrix be defined as follows
Security Guard
Vigilant or attentive Not vigilant, less attentive
Shoplifter Steal - 20, 15 15, -5
Does not steal 0, 3 0, 0
Now,
(1) There is no Nash Equilibrium in the game
(2) The shoplifter does not steal in this case
(3) The shoplifter does not steal
(4) The security guard will be watchful
(5) The security guard ill sleep on the job
Note:
Kindly find an attached copy of the complete question below
Answer:
1. c. Both a and b
2. a. Yes, because Benjamin has a Social Security number.
Explanation:
According to tax laws, you can claim a child tax credit for an American dependant below the age of 17 which qualifies Harper for it. Evelyn however qualifies for a Credit for other dependents as she is a resident alien and has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN).
Because Benjamin has a Social Security Number, the Hopkins are indeed eligible to claim an earned income credit. Married couples filling jointly can claim the credit if either of them are U.S. citizens with a valid Social Security number.
Answer:
The correct answer is letter "C": the effect of the decrease in price on total revenue dominates the effect of the increase in quantity demanded on total revenue; overall total revenue declines.
Explanation:
Goods or services have inelastic demand when changes in prices do not affect their quantity demanded. If prices decrease or increase, the quantity demanded will remain at the same level or the change will be so minimal that it is not perceived. It is said then that <em>the decrease in price dominates the effect of the changes in quantity demanded.
</em>
However, <em>if prices decrease and the quantity demanded remains the same, the company's overall revenue will decrease.</em>
Adding all of that would equal to $1,346
Answer: No, Paul has not breached a contract.
Explanation: To answer this, we must first we must define what a contract is.
A contract is an agreement between two or more people that is legally binding, and which guides or governs the actions or conducts of the parties involved.
A quality that makes a contract legally binding is that it is enforceable by law.
In the scenario given in the question above, Paul has not breached any contract because there isn't one. The promise to buy dinner has not been legally bound, therefore, it is not enforceable by law, in essence, it is not qualified to be called a contract.
