Answer:
Option (B) is correct.
Explanation:
Amount of which adjusting entry required:
= Amount of uncollectible accounts - Balance in Allowance for uncollectible accounts
= (Balance in accounts receivable × Estimated percentage of accounts receivable to be uncollectible) - Balance in Allowance for uncollectible accounts
= ($200,000 × 4%) - $2,000
= $8,000 - $2,000
= $6,000
Therefore, the adjusting entry is as follows:
Bad debt expense A/c Dr. $6,000
To Allowance for uncollectible accounts $6,000
(To record the bad debt expense)
Based on the percentage of readers who own a particular make of the car and the random sample, we can infer that there is sufficient evidence at a 0.02 level to support the executive claim.
<h3>What is the evidence to support the executive's claim?</h3>
The hypothesis is:
Null hypothesis : P = 0.55
Alternate hypothesis : P ≠ 0.55
We then need to find the test statistic:
= (Probability found by marketing executive - Probability from publisher) / √( (Probability from publisher x (1 - Probability from publisher))/ number of people sampled
= (0.46 - 0.55) / √(( 0.55 x ( 1 - 0.55)) / 200
= -2.56
Using this z value as the test statistic, perform a two-tailed test to show:
= P( Z < -2.56) + P(Z > 2.56)
= 0.0052 + 0.0052
= 0.0104
The p-value is 0.0104 which is less than the significance level of 0.02. This means that we reject the null hypothesis.
The Marketing executive was correct.
Find out more on the null and alternate hypothesis at brainly.com/question/25263462
#SPJ1
Answer:
Three part test.
The outcome: if the three requirements are not met, then there is not point the Government should interfere.
At the end, the law will be held.
Explanation:
In some cases, the courts are allowed to protect individual, company or business organization from Government interrupting with these individuals or business organization "fundamental right" and this is the "substantive due process rights " of insurance companies as mentioned in the question above.
The test that the United State Supreme Court can use to determine whether the regulations they want to enact would violate the substantive due process rights of insurance companies is what is known as the THREE PARR TEST.
THE THREE PART TEST has its root from cases such as that of Pasgraf V Long Island Railroad co. The three part test involves three main subjects and they are;
=> foreseeability: are the policies in which insurance companies work going to affect the consumers in the future?
=> proximity: what kind of relationship do the insurance companies have with there consumers?
=> fairness: are these policies just and fair?
CONCLUSION: if the three requirements are not met, then there is not point the Government should interfere.
Answer:
C. When the recipient was not included on the original email.
Explanation:
This is the correct option because forwarding allows the new recipient to see the email that was sent if they were not originally included.
~theLocoCoco
