Answer:
Correct Option is (A) U=min{2B,P}
Explanation:
The solution and complete explanation for the above question and mentioned conditions is given below in the attached document.i hope my explanation will help you in understanding this particular question.
This BEST illustrates the value of Positive reinforcement.
<h3><u>
Explanation:</u></h3>
When a person is rewarded something for doing certain tasks it refers to Positive reinforcement. This is given because for rewards that person will be doing these actions. The rewards that are given for their actions acts as a a reinforcing stimulus. For instance consider that a dad gives his daughter some gifts for doing some actions or for good deeds.
In the given example, the project that has been completed by you by working day and nights and you receive a bonus cheque from your boss after two weeks. This acts as a reward for your work and motivates you to further work happily. This bets illustrates the value of Positive reinforcement.
Answer:
<u>The effect of government regulation on a monopolist's production decisions</u>
Explanation:
The effect of a large government budget deficit on the economy's price level
The superavit or deficit of the government is a macroeconomics subject.
The money market is also macroeconomics.
The impact of regulation or specifit taxes or tax extemption on a monopolist's production will be part of microecnomics, because it will impact on which level the monopolist's production finds equilibrium after the legislation.
Answer: stress management and willingness to travel
Explanation:
Based on the scenario described in the question, Option A and C are both wrong as she doesn't need mechanical knowledge. Mechanical knowledge has to do with one's ability to be able to understand and use tools. She also doesn't need customer service as she isn't attending to customers or anyone.
Since she had to quickly go to Atlanta to put the finishing touches on the project, what she needs is her ability to manage stress and also her willingness to travel.
Answer:
$70,000
Explanation:
Under a Comparative negligence theory,
When an accident occurs, the blame or fault is determined by the contributions of each party towards the accident.
In a pure comparative negligence theory, the victim or plaintiff who files a case, sue the other party and received some part of the damages and hence each party receives the amount related to their damages minus the part of their fault.
In our case, Annette fault contributes 30% to the collision and determined that her total loss was $100,000.
So, Annette will recover:
= Total loss - 30% of fault
= $100,000 - 0.3 × $100,000
= $100,000 - $30,000
= $70,000
