Jerry has a credit card debt of $15,600 that he would like to reduce by applying $8,500 of his inheritance money to the balance.
In addition, he would like to modify his debt payment plan to pay off the remaining balance in 24 months rather than 60 months. His credit card has an APR of 18%. How much will these changes save Jerry in finance charges (interest)?
First we need to solve the finance charge without the changes. B = A (1 + ti) where t is the number of years, 60 months or 5years i is the interest rate per year, 18% or 0.18 A is the principal amount, %15,600 B is the amount after t years so, B =$15,600 ( 1 + 0.18 x 5 ) B = $15,600 ( 1 + 0.9 ) B= $15,600 (1.9) B= $29,640. The finance charge without the changes is $29,640(amount after 5 years) - $15,600(principal amount) = $14,040.
Applying the changes, the principal amount would be $15,600 - $8,500 = $7,100, the number of years will be 2 years (24 months)in equation B = $7,100 (1 + 0.18 x 2) B = $7,100 (1 + 0.36) B = $7,100 (1.36) B = $9,656, the finance charge with the changes is $9,656 - $7,100 = $2,556.
The changes Jerry made can save $14,040 - $2,556 = $11,484.
The focused attention concern with one task whereas divided attention related with more that one task at a time.
<h3>Difference between focused and divided attention</h3>
The main difference between focused attention and divided attention is that focused attention refers to the process of focusing resources on specific aspects or factor.
While on the other hand, the divided attention are concerned with limitations of performing more than one task at one time.
So we can conclude that focused attention concern with one task whereas divided attention related with more that one task at a time.
The therapist’s response illustrates the technique of active
listening. Active listening is defined as having to be fully concentrated on
what the other people is saying or actively participating on what is being said
rather just hearing or passively hearing the speaker’s message.
The correct answer is letter "C": That the oral agreement fell outside the statute of frauds if the plaintiff satisfied the main-purpose doctrine.
Explanation:
<em>Power Entertainment Inc. </em>sued <em>National Football League Properties Inc.</em>(NFLP), saying the other party violated an oral agreement to allow it to assume a third party debt if the other party would allow it to acquire valuable third party business licenses previously held. The Court of Appeals ruled that fraud status did not apply in such cases in Texas, the state where it all took place.
