Answer:
<em>c. The reasoning of both Alfons and Mary suffers from the omitted variable problem</em>
Explanation:
The issue of omitted variables occurs as a result of mis-specification of a linear regression model, which could be either because the impact of the omitted variable on both the dependent variable is unclear, or the evidence was not accessible.
This causes you to omit the variable from your regression, resulting in over-estimation (upward bias) or underestimation (downward) of the influence of one of the other predictor variables.
Answer:
A. $10,000
Explanation:
We know that :
cost of goods sold = opening inventory + purchases - ending inventory
hence,
Ending Inventory = opening inventory + purchases - cost of goods sold
therefore,
Ending Inventory = $15,000 + $45,000 - $50,000
= $10,000
The ending inventory must equal: $10,000
Answer: $15,400
Explanation:
BEP = Fixed cost - depreciation/ sales - variable cost
BEP = 740,000 - (744,000/6)/($60 -$20)
BEP= $740,000-$124,000/$40
BEP = $616,000/$40
BEP =$15,400
Maturity Value = Principal x ( 1 + Rate x Time )
Here is:
Principal = $90,000
Rate = 6% = .06
Time = 120 / 360
Maturity value = $90,000 x ( 1 + .06 x 120/360 ) =
= $90,000 x ( 1 + .02 ) =
= $90,000 x 1.02 = $91,800
Answer: c. $91,800
Answer:
The correct answer is A. In Ricci v. DeStefano, the Supreme Court ruled that an employer may not simply disregard a test based on unwanted results unless the test is shown to be biased or deficient.
Explanation:
Ricci v. DeStefano is a Supreme Court ruling of 2009, after a lawsuit by nineteen firefighters who claimed to have been discriminated against in terms of career development. They denounced that they had been discriminated after having passed the admission tests and still had not been promoted, since no African-American candidate had passed the tests. They also denounced that they had not been promoted because the Fire Department did not want to promote a group of new recruits without including within it any member of racial minorities.
Finally, the Supreme Court established that said procedure violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since in the case equal access to employment was not guaranteed (in this case, favoring minorities over white firefighters), for set different demands for purely racial reasons.
