The K-ABC is different from the wechsler test and stanford-binet because it was designed to measure several distinct aspects of intelligence. The K-ABC test is just designed to measure several distinct aspects of intelligence of human or students who are taking the test. So the answer in this question is, it was designed to measure several distinct aspects of intelligence.
<span>Unsure if there is a question posed or implied here. In any event, Trevor should have immediately researched and documented the suspect batch(es) of peanut butter, contacted any retailers who may have received the contaminated batches and then confirmed that those batches had been returned to his plant and destroyed. At the same time he should have instructed his employees to shut down the production of peanut butter, destroy the plants current output, and completely clean, inspect and retest the line in order to ensure that uncontaminated peanut butter was being produced. During this self-inspection stage, he shoudl have also notified the US FDA and reported onwhat had been done and documented.</span>
Answer:
Total $53.0656 (millions)
Explanation:
We will need to add the present value of the coupon payment
and the present value of the maturity date
<u>present value of the annuity:</u>
C= 60 million x 5% /2 1.5
time= 20 years 2 payment per year = 40
rate = 6% annual = 0.06/2 = 0.03 semiannually
PV $34.6722
<u>present value of the bonds:</u>
Maturity 60
time 40
rate 0.03
PV $18.3934
<u>The value of the bond will be the sum of both</u>
PV c $34.6722
PV m $18.3934
Total $53.0656
Mhm I would say false but just wait for someone else to answer I’m not sure.
Answer:
The answer is: A) the employees did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Explanation:
Reasonable expectation of privacy is included in the Fourth Amendment, and it refers to certain aspects of a person's life that should be private.
People can usually expect privacy at their homes, but once they are outside things can change a little. The law usually protects people from being exposed to humiliating situations in public or the exposure of private details of their life.
In a workplace, things can get even more trickier, since your employer has the right to "invade" your privacy because he has a legitimate interest to know (e.g. security cameras). In this case the employer notified the employees that their communications would be monitored, so the employees cannot argue that they thought they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
