Answer: Please refer to Explanation.
Explanation:
Two Companies. We shall call them A and B.
If A and B decide not to advertise, they both get $5,000,000.
If A advertises and B does not then A captures $3 million from B at a cost of $2 million meaning their payoff would be,
= 5 million - 2 million + 3 million
= $6 million.
A will have $6 million and B will have $2 million as $3 million was captured from them. This scenario holds true if B is the one that advertises and A does not.
If both of them Advertise, they both reduce their gains by $2 million while capturing $3 million from each other so they'll essentially both have just $3 million if they both decide to advertise.
With the above scenarios, it is better for both companies to ADVERTISE if there is NO COLLUSION. This is because it ensures that they do not get the lowest payoff of $2 million if the other company decides to advertise and they do not.
However, if they DO COLLUDE. They must both decide that NONE of them SHOULD ADVERTISE and this would leave them with their original $5 million each which is a higher payoff than the $3 million they will both receive if they were both advertising.
It gives the child more protection so like say we didn't have seat belts then you got into a car accident then you would fly forward and if you had a seatbelt it wouldn't make you fly forward
Answer:
- I think Ben should encourage the Senior Management to call a multidisciplynary meeting and do some research.
Explanation:
<em>I think Ben is right</em>. Even though the statement is technically correct, it may mislead customers.
Customers may interpret the phrase "<em>no sugar added</em>" as if the product did not contain any sugar.
Thus, customers interested in drinking beverages without sugar at all might think they are "safe" consuming the smoothie beverage, when in reallity each <em>smoothie's bottle contains sugar 35 g of naturally occurring sugars from the fruit.</em>
Customers deserve to be certain on what they are buying, thus the labels must be a sincere help for them, and not ambiguos at all.
This is a "gray zone" and an example of what in ethics is called a dilema.
I think the decision should be shared by a wider team and based on some research.
I think Ben should encourage the Senior Management to call a multidisciplynary meeting, where the subject is widely discussed. Also, I would suggest Ben to do some research, look for precedents about labeling in the industry, and try to learn the opinion of the FDA about this sensitive matter.
Answer:
Tell her that it will take a very long time
Explanation:
