Answer:
D, a pareto diagram
Explanation:
The pareto diagram was named after the discoverer of the diagram/technique, Vilfredo Pareto. He used the diagram in his study of wealth and poverty in Europe in the 1900s.
The pareto diagram is a bar chart that ranks related events in decreasing other of occurrence. It contains both a bar and line graph. The individual events are recorded by the bar while the total event is recorded by the line graphs.
In the above question, for Clarissa to identify defects, she has to use Pareto diagram which will have the defects represented by the bar and the total production process by the line graph. This helps her to find out the stage in production where the defects started from and how much effect it has onn the production process.
Cheers.
Answer:
$3.75
Explanation:
As we already know that
Direct materials quantity variance = (Budged pounds of direct material - Actual pounds of direct material) × Standard rate
$1,500 unfavorable = (4,400 pounds - 4,800 pounds) × Standard rate
$1,500 unfavorable = 400 × Standard rate
So, standard rate is
= $1,500 ÷ $400
= $3.75
We simply applied the above formula
Answer:
(A) Interest coverage charge ratio= 6.21
(B) Fixed charge coverage = 2.84
(C) Profit margin ratio= 8.57%
(D) Total assets turnover= 1.55
(E) Return on assets= 13.26%
Explanation:
(A) The Interest coverage charge ratio can be calculated as follows= EBIT/Interest expense
= 45,300/7,300
= 6.21
(B) The fixed charge coverage can be calculated as follows
= income before fixed charge + interest/fixed charges + interest
= 45,300+13,300/7,300+13,300
= 58,600/20,600
= 2.84
(C) The profit margin ratio can be calculated as follows
= Net income/sales × 100
= 22,800/266,000 × 100
=0.0857 × 100
= 8.57%
(D) The total assets turnover can be calculated as follows
= Sales/total assets
= 266,000/172,000
= 1.55
(E) The return on assets can be calculated as follows
= Net income/Total assets × 100
= 22,800/172,000 × 100
= 0.13255×100
= 13.26%
Answer:
The correct answer is B. result from the political bias toward immediate benefits and deferred costs.
Explanation:
While many people run hysterically on the streets begging politicians to act in the face of the threat of climate change, many people, young and old, may be demanding the same type of action, but to fix the unfunded passive systems.
By extending eligibility and increasing the benefits of a pay-per-use system while at the same time having fewer children to finance it, previous generations have left a fearsome financial obligation. Either taxes will increase dramatically for tomorrow's workers, lowering their standard of living, or benefits will fall for tomorrow's retirees, lowering their standard of living. A group will feel very angry.
These problems were anticipated even when politicians were raising payments, but each elected government simply kicked the can and allowed things to continue as usual.
Social security systems and pension funds are actuarially not funded systems. There is no obligation for this generation to have children at the same rate as previous generations. Therefore, when those born in the 1950s reach retirement age in the next century, their stipends will feel more like a burden due to the ranks of non-active members of society that will depend on their contributions to live.
The Stackelberg solution can be used to find the perfect or stable Nash equilibrium or equilibria.
<h3>What is this equilibrium about?</h3>
Other answers:
Based on the above, Note that the strategy profile is one where one serves best each player, and based on the strategies of the other player and it covers the fact that all player playing in a Nash equilibrium must be in every subgame.
Note also that The Stackelberg leadership model is said to be a kind off strategic game that is played in economics where the leader firm is known to moves first and then the follower firms is said to then move in a sequential manner and I think, the solution do not change if stackelberg game is considered in the long run.
I believe that the stackelberg leader will not collude with the stackelberg follower but in a lot of cases, there may be a collusion.
Yes, a Stackelberg leader can be more likely or less likely to merge with the follower firm as a merger can be profitable to them.
Learn more about equilibrium from
brainly.com/question/517289
#SPJ1
