Note:
I wasn't able to access the Chester Income Statement but I successfully accessed a similar question Digby.
The Complete Question is as under:
Refer to the HR Reports in the Inquirer. Through past investments in recruiting and training Digby has obtained a productivity index of 109.6%. This means that Digby's labor costs would be increased by 9.6% if it did not have these productivity improvements. This is a competitive advantage that Digby can sustain or even widen further if its competitors have no HR initiatives. Now, refer to the Income Statement in Digby's Annual Report. How much did Digby's productivity improvements save it in direct labor costs (in thousands) last year?
A. $766
B. $29818
C. $3137
D. $3211
Answer:
Option D. $3,137
Explanation:
The Productivity Index of 9.6% shows that if the improvement plan is implemented then the efficiency gains would result in saving of 9.6% of total direct cost. So if we total the direct cost for the year for all of the four products then we have an amount of $32,680 which is given at the second last column.
The amount saved last year would be:
Savings = $32,680 * 9.6% = $3,137
Hence the option C is correct here.
Answer:
Total period cost under variable costing $60,000
Explanation:
The computation of the total period cost under variable costing is shown below:
Variable selling and administrative expenses (880 units × $15) $13,200
Add: Fixed selling and administrative expenses $21,120
Add: Fixed manufacturing overhead $25,680
Total period cost under variable costing $60,000
Answer:
Part A: Null hypothesis. H₀: M₁ = M₂
Alternative hypothesis, H₁ : M₁ > M₂
Part B: x1-x2 = 6459-5735 = 724
Part C: p-value = 0.000
Part D: No, the difference in brain size is not due to random chance
Explanation:
See attached image
Answer: 4) No change in the money supply because the $200 in currency has been converted to a $200 increase in checkable deposits
Explanation:
The money supply refers to the total amount of money currently in circulation. In this instance it remains the same because no new money was introduced into the economy.
All that has happened is that Ms. Rogers took her $200 which was already in circulation and part of money supply and deposited it in her checking account. The money is therefore still in circulation, just not in immediate cash.
Money supply therefore remains the same.
