Answer:
MR = 10 – 1q1.
Explanation:
Demand function, P = 20 – 0.5Q
Q = q1 + q2
Now insert Q in the P = 20 – 0.5Q.
P = 20 – 0.5 (q1 + q2)
We have the value of q2 = 20.
P = 20 – 0.5 (q1 + q2)
P = 20 – 0.5 (q1 + 20)
P = 20 – 0.5q1 – 10
P = 10 – 0.5q1
Total revenue of firm 1, TR = Pq1
TR = 10q1 – (0.5q1)^2
Now MR is the differentiation of TR. So the MR after differentiation if TR of firm 1 is:
MR = 10 – 1q1
Answer:
A) Probability neglect
Explanation:
You probably have lived there so long that you neglect to see what the true crime is, and you honestly could care less if its at it all time high
Answer:
<u>Line of credit </u>
Explanation:
A line of credit refers to a mechanism of availing short term credit from banks whereby a borrower is provided with a preset limit till which funds can be availed anytime.
As the borrower repays the money borrowed, the line of credit gets restored to the previous level provided it is an open line of credit.
Line of credit specifies the maximum limit till which money can be borrowed. The rate of interest and repayment time period are decided by the lender which is usually a bank.
Borrower is usually supposed to pay interest upon the money actually borrowed and not the full limit of the line of credit.
According to the case, the use of Ph.D. on the ads for hair care products by John Smith is considered an example of the fallacy of inappropriate expertise.
The provided statement is true.
<h3>What is a fallacy?</h3>
A fallacy is an unlawful statement that is used by someone in stating any reasoning or argument which can even be harmful to society.
In the given case, John is having Ph.D. degree in the archaeology field, and his attempt to use the word Ph.D. on the haircare goods marketed by him would be a fallacy in respect of inappropriate expertise. The fallacy could be the use of the Ph.D. word on ads and the inappropriate expertise is that he doesn't have any knowledge regarding skincare and dermatology area.
Therefore, this may create a harmful effect on the individuals who are buying them as it is not authorized by a dermatologist.
Learn more about the fallacy in the related link:
brainly.com/question/2516239
#SPJ1
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Because there are plenty of suppliers for some goods, the food truck owner is more powerful in this case than the suppliers. Here the power of suppliers is low
For the other goods with only a single supplier. the supplier has more powerful than the taco seller. here the power of supplier is high. If the supplier increases price, the taco seller would most likely have an inelastic demand and would be at the mercy of the supplier
thus, the power of suppliers is relatively high for some items and relatively low for others.