Answer: Option A -- Choosing low is a weakly dominant strategy for Apple.
Explanation: Dominant strategy in a game theory can be defined as the course of action that occurs when one strategy/player is better than the other strategy/player regardless of what the other player does or how well the other player may play. dominant strategy is all about a player who has the highest favours in a game. Considering the above matrix, we know that Apple has the dominant strategy. And for apple to choose low is a weakly dominant strategy for it.
When you plan training and development for your organization, you expect to gain improved skills and productivity, greater retention rates, and an improved brand. After you deliver any type of corporate training, you must ask these questions:
Answer:
a. Revenue = $23,660
b. Revenue = $40,837.50
Explanation:
a) Data and Calculations:
Minimum number of chairs to be sold under the deal = 260
Price at minimum number of chairs (260) = $91
Maximum number of chairs to be sold under the deal = 450
Discount offered for quantity above 260 = $0.25 per chair on the entire order
Price at maximum number (or just above 260 chairs) = $90.75 ($91 - $0.25)
Minimum revenue to be made under this deal = $23,660 (260 * $91)
Maximum revenue to be made under this deal = $40,837.50 (450 * $90.75)
Answer:
market price of bonds = $219,597.35
Explanation:
Since the coupon rate is higher than the market rate, the bonds will be sold at a premium.
PV of face value = $200,000 / (1 + 3%)³⁰ = $82,397.35
PV of coupon payments = $7,000 x 19.600 (PV annuity factor, 3%, 30 periods) = $137,200
market price of bonds = $219,597.35
Answer:
Three part test.
The outcome: if the three requirements are not met, then there is not point the Government should interfere.
At the end, the law will be held.
Explanation:
In some cases, the courts are allowed to protect individual, company or business organization from Government interrupting with these individuals or business organization "fundamental right" and this is the "substantive due process rights " of insurance companies as mentioned in the question above.
The test that the United State Supreme Court can use to determine whether the regulations they want to enact would violate the substantive due process rights of insurance companies is what is known as the THREE PARR TEST.
THE THREE PART TEST has its root from cases such as that of Pasgraf V Long Island Railroad co. The three part test involves three main subjects and they are;
=> foreseeability: are the policies in which insurance companies work going to affect the consumers in the future?
=> proximity: what kind of relationship do the insurance companies have with there consumers?
=> fairness: are these policies just and fair?
CONCLUSION: if the three requirements are not met, then there is not point the Government should interfere.