Answer:
1. a decrease in the price of natural gas
Explanation:
Given that homeowners choose to heat their houses with either natural gas or heating oil. It means that natural gas and heating oil are substitute products.
If there will be an increase in the demand for natural gas, there will invariably be a decrease in demand for heating oil.
From the options given, a decrease in the price of natural gas will result in and increase in it's demand.
They can go to a well known reputable counsellor and both present their points of view and their reasoning and discuss it with the counsellor who should be able to delve into the reasoning for their moral positions and perhaps find common ground for the two positions or point out inconsistencies in the arguments of one to increase understanding of the other parties's position and arrive at a mutually beneficial result.
Because the future value of annual premiums deposited in a mutual fund is 755 (F/A, 9%, 45) = $397,023.34, Then, the friend is correct since the mutual fund is roughly three times the sum under the Insurance policy.
<h3>Was Liam's
suggestion correct?</h3>
Generally, Premium payment is mathematically given as
X=60-20
X=45years
Where future value is
755 (F/A, 9%, 45)
In conclusion
755 (F/A, 9%, 45) = 755 * 525.8587
755 (F/A, 9%, 45) = $397,023.34
Read more about Arithmetic
brainly.com/question/22568180
Complete Question
Liam O'Kelly is 20 years old and is thinking about buying a term life insurance policy with his wife as the beneficiary. The quoted annual premium for Liam is $8.39 per thousand dollars of insurance coverage Because Liam wants a $90,000 policy (which is 2.5 times his annual salary), the annual premium would be $755, with the first payment due immediately (i.e., at age 21). A friend of Liam's suggests that the $755 annual premium should be deposited in a good mutual fund rather than in the insurance policy. "If the mutual fund earns 9% per year, you can become a millionaire by the time you retire at age 65," the friend advises.
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.
