We will use the formula; A = Pe^(r*t)
Given;
A = 17,000
r = 5.1%
t = 14
Solution;A = Pe^(r*t) Compounding continously
17,000 = Pe^(.051*14)
17,000/e^(.714) = P
$8324.59 = P
The money that has been invested at 5.1% interest and compounded contiounsly to have 17,000 after 14 years is $8324.59
Answer:
(a). For every additional square foot of area of a house, the price is predicted to increase by $61
(b) The asking price is $145410 and the residual is a negative $4100
Explanation:
As per the data given in the question,
a) From regression equation Slope = 0.061
So slope = (0.061 × 1,000) ÷ 1 sq. ft.
= $61 per sq. ft.
For every additional square foot area price is increased by $61
b) If size of the house is = 1600 square foot then
Price = 47.81 + 1600*0.061
=$145,410
The asked price is $4,100 less than estimated price and residual is not positive
Hence,
Asking price = $145,410
Residual price = a negative $4,100
Answer:A. Leontief assumed that U.S. and foreign technologies were the same, while the Heckscher-Ohlin model assumes they are different
B. Leontief ignored land abundance in the United States
D. Leontief’s test distinguished between skilled and unskilled labor, but ignored capital.
Explanation:Leontief paradox is a Russian-American economist, his work was based on the work of Wassily W. Leontief he attempted to test the Heckscher–Ohlin theory ("H–O theory") empirically.
in economics tries to explain that a country with a higher capital per worker has a lower Capital per labor ratio in export than when compared to Import.
LEONTIEF IGNORED THE ABUNDANCE OF LAND IN MAKING HIS ASSUMPTIONS
HE ALSO CLASSIFIED THE U.S TECHNOLOGY AND OTHERS AS THE SAME WHICH IS NOT IN LINE WITH THE H-O MODEL ASSUMPTION.
LEONTIEF THEORY IGNORED CAPITAL DURING HIS TEST.
Answer:
more intense the competitive pressures posed by substitute products.
Explanation:
The lower the user's switching costs: the more intense the competitive pressures posed by substitute products.
Switching costs can be defined as the cost of a consumer switching from a product to a substitute good.
Therefore when such switching costs are low, it will be easier to switch from one product to another, implying that the competitive pressure from substitute goods are higher.
