Answer:
The answer is: B) No, since the marginal cost of drug control exceeds the marginal benefit, the government should not spend $4,170 to deter one person from using drugs.
Explanation:
There are two ways in analyzing this situation, economically the government shouldn't spend that much money to prevent someone from using drugs, the marginal costs are much larger than the marginal benefits ($4,170 ˃ $897).
But if you only use this type of analysis for government spending, why should the firefighters try to stop a fire? Many times it is much more expensive and risky to do it.
UHH NO SElectionS? WELL THEN.... IDK
Answer:
B.
Explanation:
Coca-Cola was trying to build new core competencies to protect and extend their current marketing position.
Answer:
Units sold equaled 39,000 and units produced equaled 42,000.
Explanation:
The reason is that operating income will be lower under variable costing than absorption costing when there is a rise in the the unit level of inventory during an accounting period.
From the question, the 42,000 units of production is 3,000 units greater than the 39,000 units sold. This implies that there is an increase in the unit of inventory level. This usually cause the variable-costing income to be lower than absorption-costing income.
