Solution :
It is given that Fizzo and Pop Hop sells orange soda. Fizzo advertises about his drinks while Pop Hop does not advertises.
According to the matrix provided we can conclude that :
-- If Fizzo wishes to advertise about his soda drinks, he will earn a profit of 8 million dollar and if Pop Hop do advertises and a 15 million dollar if Pop Hop does not advertises.
-- If Fizzo does not advertise, it will earn profit of about 2 million dollar if Pop Hop advertises and 9 million dollar if Pop Hop does not advertises.
-- When Pop Hop wished to advertise , Fizzo will make a higher profit if he chooses to advertise.
-- When Pop Hop do not advertise, Fizzo will make a higher profit when it chooses to advertise.
And if both the firms acts independently and they start off not advertising, then --- both firms will advertise as both of them will earn highest profits each.
If both the firms collude and both firms start off not advertising, the strategies they will end up is that both the firms will not advertise as the joint profit will be maximized.
Answer: c. They would do better charging $15 than $10.
Explanation:
It is given that Max and Maddy total cost of car parking remains the same, that is it does not matter whether they have seven or five cars parked on their lawn. So, since total cost is constant, Max and Maddy's decision would depend on total revenue.
Total revenue from charging, $10 is $70,
Total revenue from charging $15 is $75.
Since, total cost is constant, Max and Maddy will choose to charge $15 since it is giving them $5 more.
Answer:
-$4,150
Explanation:
Calculation to determine your net profit or loss on this investment
Using this formula
Net profit/Loss=(Option price per share-Exercise price+Stock price)×100×10
Let plug in the formula
Net loss = ($0.85 - $39 + $34) × 100 × 10
Net loss =-$4.15×100×19
Net loss = -$4,150
Therefore your net loss on this investment is -$4,150
This is called a "Sponsorship"
Answer: A. dialectic method
Explanation:
The DIALECTIC METHOD or DIALECTICS at it's basic level is a sort of debate between people of opposing viewpoints who wish to use the debate to come up with the best viewpoint by stating the facts and truths of their viewpoints.
They speak on whatever misgivings they may have about the other and explain in a logical manner why their views are better.
It is 'sort' of like a debate because unlike debates, it isn't supposed to get emotional but be fact and merit based.
