Answer:
c: increase in the bargaining power of suppliers of a critical input
Explanation:
Five Forces Framework by Porter's can be regarded as a method involving analysis of competition in a business. It's analysis dream through
industrial organization economics determine forces that are responsible for competitive intensity. The forces are;
✓potential new market entrants
✓number and power of a company's competitive rivals
✓ influence of suppliers, customers,on company's profitability.
It should be noted that Consolidation among fuel providers serving airport facilities is viewed in the five forces model of competition as a increase in the bargaining power of suppliers of a critical input.
There are 100 people and 4 answers. The minimum people for each answer is 10. You can distribute the minimum people to make it easy.
Answer 1. 10 people
Answer 2. 10 people
Answer 3. 10 people
Answer 4. 10 people
There are still 60 people that are not assigned, so you take this number and add it to the minimum.
60 + 10 = 70
Answer: The maximum number of customers giving any one response is 70 people.
Answer:
Opportunity cost
Explanation:
A country is said to have a comparative advantage in producing a good, if it has a lower opportunity cost of producing that good in comparison to the other country. For instance if the opportunity cost of producing Wheat in U.S is 2. While that in China is 1. It shows that China has a comparative advantage in producing wheat as compared to the U.S.
So a nation that has a comparative advantage in producing a good or service compared to the other nation can produce that good or service with a lower opportunity cost.
Efficiency, Profit and Resource cost are not directly related to comparative advantage. Although efficiency can contribute towards lower opportunity cost but it is not a scale used for international trade.
Thus, lower opportunity cost is the best alternative.
Answer:
the fifth game of chess is a different good than the first game of chess.
Explanation:
In this scenario Jackson says that the fifth game of chess gave him more utility than the first game he played. This goes against the law of diminishing marginal utility which states that the utility a consumer gains from consuming a good diminishes as more of the good is consumed.
The logical explanation an economist will give is that the fifth game was a different product than the first game. So the utility between the products are different.
In such a situation it is possible that the utility from the fifth game is higher than that of the first game
