Answer:
The correct answer is A and B
Explanation:
Law of increasing the opportunity cost is the principle or the concept which is defined as the company continue to increase the production of one good, the opportunity cost of producing the next unit will increase.
It is as to reallocate the resources in order to produce that one good which was better or best suited to produce the original good.
The law of opportunity cost occur when some of the resources are best suited for some tasks or products instead of others and it will lead to increase in production with increase in the opportunity cost too.
Answer:
Utilitarianism.
Explanation:
Utilitarianism is extraordinary compared to other known and most compelling moral theories. Like different types of consequentialism, its center thought is that whether activities are morally right or wrong relies upon their belongings. All the more explicitly, the main impacts of activities that are important are the great and terrible outcomes that they produce.
Answer:
<em>Inaccurate</em>
Explanation:
<em>The information that was given to Alex Timbers who was a wood supplier that furniture manufacturing company requires teak wood, this information was </em><u><em>inaccurate</em></u><em>.</em>
Because we can see in the scenario which is mentioned in the question that the quality specialist of that furniture manufacturer company observes that the logs that was sent by Alex Timbers are very big, as the company itself ordered for teak wood, and we know that teak wood is very big. So, we can say that information provided by the company was inaccurate.
Answer:
Beta= 1.5
Explanation:
<u>First, we need to calculate the proportional investment of each asset:</u>
Total investment= $100,000
BOA= 30,000/100,000= 0.3
Best Buy= 20,000/100,000= 0.2
Harley-Davidson= 50,000/100,000= 0.5
<u>To calculate the beta of the portfolio, we need to use the following formula:</u>
Beta= (proportion of investment A*beta A) + (proportion of investment B*beta B)...
Beta= (0.3*1.8) + (0.2*1.05) + (0.5*1.5)
Beta= 1.5
Answer:
a. Asarta Inc. could pay the fishermen $8,500 and keep polluting
Explanation:
The fishermen sell the fish for $8,000 a year at local market.
Due to pollution emitted by company into stream, their catch is dwindling and also their income.
The company benefits from usage of stream to the tune of $4,000 a year. In such scenario, if company compensates the fishermen for any amount between $8,000 and $40,000 then, in that case, optimal solution to the problem can be achieved in absence of any other transaction cost as per the Coase Theorem.
Therefore, The Asarta Inc. could pay the fishermen $8,500 and keep polluting.
