Answer: According to Ian Redpath and Greg Urban, the threshold amount required for conclusively stating whether a substantial basis adjustment is mandatory is $250,000. The amount required is $250,000 in order for one to know whether they are in need for a substantial basis reduction or maybe not. It's required when the amount indeed exceeds $250,000.
Answer:
The correct answer is Inductive reasoning.
Explanation:
Inductive reasoning is a form of reasoning in which the truth of the premises supports the conclusion, but does not guarantee it. A classic example of inductive reasoning is:
- All the crows observed so far have been black
- Therefore, all crows are black
In principle, it could be that the next crow observed is not black. In contrast to deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning has the advantage of being expansive, that is, the conclusion contains more information than is contained in the premises. Given its expansive nature, inductive reasoning is very useful and frequent in science and in everyday life. However, given its fallible nature, its justification is problematic. When are we justified in making an inductive inference, and concluding, for example, that all crows are black from a limited sample of them? What distinguishes a good inductive argument from a bad one? These and other related problems give rise to the problem of induction, whose validity and importance has continued for centuries.
Answer:
$230,899
Explanation:
Calculation for what the equivalent present cost is for the first 5 years
Present cost of the repair work = 68,000 * (P/A, 6%,5) - 7,000 * (P/G, 6%,5)
Present cost of the repair work= 68,000 * 4.212364 - 7,000 * 7.934549
Present cost of the repair work= $230,898.90 Approximately $230,899
Therefore the Present cost of the repair work will be $230,899
(Paragraph 1) Should eyewitness testimony be allowed in the courtroom? No but at the same time yes. There are many reasons why they should but shouldn't. It is a risk to their safety, some eyewitnesses are not liable, they could be paid off but at the same time their testimony could help win a case. (Paragraph 2) Depending on a crime, the eyewitness safety could be in danger. If the case was against a member of a gang or mafia. They could send someone after that witness. This is reason why we have the Witness Protection Program. If they testify they put their lives at risk. (Paragraph 3) Having a witness is a key thing to have. If you have a witness you are the one who most likely the one to win the case. In some cases you could have problems with the witness not being liable, getting paid off to not say anything or to lie. Or in most cases if they are confused they will not have them testify. Or they aren't straight on the details and keep changing the story that usually means they are lying on what they saw.
Note: This is a summary. Add more and edit it to make it sound like something you would type.
Marketers must weigh carefully the costs of additional information against the benefit resulting from it.
What are marketers?
A marketer is a person who advertises an organization's products and services. They identify the tactics that can increase sales and revenue while making sure that these tactics are in line with consumer demands and market demands.
Therefore,
Marketers must weigh carefully the costs of additional information against the benefit resulting from it.
To learn more about Marketers from the given link:
brainly.com/question/25369230
