Answer:
<h2>In the context of Consumer Theory or Indifference Curve involving two goods,the opportunity of any one good is computed by how much of the other good is foregone or sacrificed to purchase one more unit of that particular good.</h2>
Explanation:
- In this instance,when Bill's diner consumes 35 burgers and 25 hotdogs,its opportunity cost of additional hot dog=
.Therefore,initially Bill diner's opportunity cost of an additional hot dog is 1.4 units of burger.
- Now,when Bill's diner chooses to consume a combination of 25 burgers and 65 hot dogs,its opportunity cost of additional hot dogs=
approximately.Hence,Bill's diner is willing to sacrifice approximately 0.385 units of burger to consume an additional unit of hot dog. - Now,due to the change in consumption combination,the change in opportunity cost of additional hot dog=
units of burger.Notice,that here the opportunity cost of additional hot dog decreased from 1.4 units of burger to 0.385 units of burger as Bill's diner changed the consumption combination of both burgers and hot dogs.
Answer:
B. The denial is justifiable given the level of interbrand competition.
Explanation:
Anti trust law only applicable if you can proof that two or more producers in the same industry work together in order to assert their control over the market. They can do this through price fixing, controlling the amount of supply, etc.
This condition<em> can't be found</em> in the scenario above.
The denial that done by PepsiCo is justifiable because in a really competitive market, a company need to impose a strict requirement on which entities they should form a dealership relation with. If PepsiCo choose the wrong dealers, Its competitors could easily taken over the market and resulted in a huge amount of loss for the company.
True.
I hope this helps! :)
Answer:
Option (c) is correct.
Explanation:
Given information states that bananas and tangerines are substitute goods. We know that the cross price elasticity of substitute goods is positive which means that there is a positive relationship between the price of one good and the quantity demanded for substitute good.
Therefore, in our case as the price of bananas increases and all the other factors remains constant then as a result the quantity demanded for tangerines increases.