Answer:
This is really a personal opinion, since whether it is correct to send people to mars or not depends largely on your point of view and personal beliefs. Clearly, humans are far more capable than robots, and they can explore space and eventually other planets much better than a rover. On the other hand, sending people to Mars is not only extremely expensive, but it is also extremely dangerous for the astronauts themselves.
Imagine so many people died trying to get to space and then to the moon, and that was very easy compared to getting to Mars and back.
We can find millions of better ways to use the money than sending people to space, and that is really hard to argue against. Our planet, our country, state or even city could all benefit and use the money more productively.
But lets say that we do not care about the money because Mr. Bezos or some other billionaire decided to donate it. Now we would face the technical issues of going to Mars and actually staying there for a long time. A trip to mars is not something that would be carried out for just a couple of hours (like moon walking). Astronauts will have to stay in Mars for weeks, months or even years before they can return. This results in an extreme danger to their health due to cosmic rays. Can humans survive long term exposure to cosmic rays? The answer is NO and Mars's atmosphere doesn't help.
If we analyze this situation from a technical point of view, it would be better and safer to send astronauts to Titan (Saturn's moon), and would probably be also more useful. Titan's environment is similar to Earth's in many ways, and if we are actually doing it for a scientific purpose besides simply being curious, then it is much more useful to go to Titan. The scientific purpose of going to mars instead of other possible destinations is not very solid. Mars is really different to Earth and unless someone finds Martians living there, there is not much you can do.
Answer:
1. Suppose Quantity of Apple sold in year one & two = 100Kg.
Price in year 1 = $1.50 per kg
Price in year 2 = $3.00 per kg
Nominal GDP 1 = Price * Quantity = 1.50*100 = $150
Nominal GDP year 2 = 3*100 = $300
Change in Nominal GDP = $150
Percentage change in Nominal GDP = 100%
b. Real GDP of year 1 = Nominal GDP of year 1 = $150
Real GDP of year 2 = 1.50*100 = $150
Change in Real GDP = 0%
2. Quantity of Bread = 100 units price = $ 1 per unit, year 2 price = $ 2 per units
a. Nominal GDP year 1 = 1*100+1.5*100 = $250
Nominal GDP year 2 = 2*100+3*100 = $500
Percentage change in Nominal GDP = 500-250/500 * 100 = 100%
b. Real GDP year 1 = $250
Real GDP year 2 = 1*100 + 1.5*100 = $250
Percentage change in Real GDP = 0%
Answer: D
Explanation:
Not necessarily. As long as the company follows GAAP (IFRS or ASPE), the format and information should be the same. This is because the accounting standards requires firm to report financial information in a specific way.
This test that Albert Chong and his colleagues carried out was most relevant for evaluating the allocative efficiency of these postal services because the test was designed to measure how often and how quickly the letters sent were returned to sender.
Answer:
1. 4,350 helmets
Explanation:
1. The computation of the number of helmets is shown below:
= (Total fixed cost + operating income) ÷ (Contribution margin per unit)
where,
Contribution margin per unit = Selling price per unit - Variable cost per unit
= $76 - $44
= $32
So, it would be
= ($49,600 + $89,600) ÷ ($32)
= ($139,200) ÷ ($32)
= 4,350 helmets
2. The contribution margin income statement is presented below:
Sales (4,350 × $76) $330,600
Less: Variable cost (4,350 × $44) ($191,400)
Contribution margin $139,200
Less: Total Fixed cost ($49,600)
Operating income $89,600
