Answer:
The correct option here is A).
Explanation:
Option A - is correct because according to the conclusion given in the argument, charitable institutions would have to reduce their services and some might have to close their doors , which means the assumption we are going to take will have a direct affect on these institutions , now if we assume that this assumption is false, that means whether this change comes or not charitable institutions will receive donations but that is not the case , so this option has to be correct.
Option B - this option is not right because it is nowhere said that these wealthy individuals are the only source of donations for charitable institution.
Option C - this option is also not correct because here no assumption is being made, the given statement is a consequence of not bringing the change.
Option D - this option is also not correct because there can be other individuals who can make donations.
Option E - this option is also not correct because here an alternative change to tax law is being talked about not the assumption of the argument.
Insurance is a coverage that assesses the risk of a certain item/person. If that item/person is in good condition, your insurance will be lower because it's less likely it'll get damaged.
This is why if you have a bad driving history, your car insurance is high (as there is a high risk).
If you were to instal an alarm, live in a safe neighbourhood or choose not to install a swimming pool you would actually reduce your insurance.
If you have an alarm, you are less likely to have stuff stolen (safer = less risk).
Living in a safe neighbourhood is safer = less risk.
Not installing a pool means your property remains the same value (putting a pool could increase it), higher risk of someone drowning in the pool, or hurting themselves. So by not building the pool, you'll have a safer environment = less risk.
If you build your house in a floodplain, the chance of your house getting damages by a flood is very very high, so you will have to pay more as there is an increased risk.
Answer:
Since the expected return and required return are different for both Stock X and Z, we say that they are not correctly priced
Explanation:
<em>To determine whether or not the stocks are correctly priced ,</em>
<em>we have to compare the r</em><em>equired return</em><em> and the </em><em>expected return on each of them.</em>
Required return = Rf +β (Rm-Rf)
Note that Rm-Rf is also known as market risk premium
<em>Stock Y Stock Z</em>
<em>Required return </em> 2.4% + 1.2(7.2%) 2.4% + 0.8(7.2%)
= 11% = 8.2%
<em>Expected return</em> <em>12.1% 7.85%</em>
Since the expected return and required return are different for both Stock X and Z, we say that they are not correctly priced
Answer:
Internal cost.
Explanation:
The gasoline that a person used for his car is an example of an internal cost.
Internal costs are considered as a private costs which were incurred by the firms for the production of goods. It includes labor, depreciation, rents and inputs. These are the costs which is directly borne by a firm or an individual.
It is the direct cost associated with the firms for the production of goods and services.
In the question above, Walt asks for 10 gallons of gas while Jessie asks for $10 worth of gas. In both the cases, the drivers need gas but Walt is concerned about the quantity of gas and Jessie is concerned about the price of the gas.
In case of Walt, the price elasticity of demand is zero because he want 10 gallons of gas regardless of the price of gas per gallon. While in case of Jessie, the price elasticity of demand is one because he wants to buy gas worth $10, no matter what is the price of the gas per gallon.
