We have:
Initial cost (PV) = 63800
Annual cash flow (Pmt) = 16580
N = 6
Since the cash flows are conventional in nature, we can use the following formula to calculate the IRR:
PV = Pmt x PVIFA(N, R)
63800 = 16,580 x PVIFA (6, R)
PVIFA (6, R) = 3.84800965
Solving for R using PV of annuity table, we get R= 9.4162%
Therefore, Internal rate of return would be 9.4162%.
Answer:
1. 17%
2. 42.5%
3. $2,748,900
4. 44%
Explanation:
1. Return on Investment for 2017
= 
= 
= 17%
2. Profit Margin 2017
= 
= 
= 42.50%
3. Should the sales increase by 10% in 2018 then the new sales figure will be;
= $5,880,000 + ($5,880,000 *10%)
= $6,468,000
Profit = Sales * Profit Margin
= 6,468,000 * 42.5%
= $2,748,900
Return on Investment for 2018
=
= 
= 18.7%
4. Investment turnover equal for 2018
= 
= 
= 44%
Answer:
enter into the industry
fall
Explanation:
A perfect competition is characterized by many buyers and sellers of homogenous goods and services. Market prices are set by the forces of demand and supply. There are no barriers to entry or exit of firms into the industry.
In the long run, firms earn zero economic profit. If in the short run firms are earning economic profit, in the long run firms would enter into the industry. This would drive economic profit to zero.
Also, if in the short run, firms are earning economic loss, in the long run, firms would exit the industry until economic profit falls to zero.
Answer:
A. ACL
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that the most essential antispoofing technique would be ACL or Access Control Lists. This tool limits access to the router to only those on the list and thus preventing spoofing on the routers. Which is why it is a top recommendation by Cisco for this type of scenario.
Answer:
In the "Spur", the choice is between killing five strangers or one loved one. You could pull a lever to redirect the train coming at the five men. You would still be killing the one man tied to sidetrack, but you would save the lives of those other five men.
In the "Fat Man", a runaway train is coming toward five men that are all tied down to the tracks. The train has to be stopped in order to save the lives of those five men. You are the onlooker of this scenario, and you are standing on top of a footbridge looking down at the train situation. There happens to be a fat man standing next to you, and he is a complete stranger. You have the option of pushing him off the bridge in order to save those five men, but you would end up killing the fat man. The philosophical question is whether or not you would kill the fat man in order to save those five lives.thexplanation:
The reason that this scenario is different morally is that you would physically have to push this fat man onto the tracks when he was not in the path of that oncoming train.
The whole concept of the trolley problem is based on the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE). This doctrine basically states that if you are doing something morally good, which has a morally bad side-effect, it is still ethically okay to go through with that morally good action.
In Spur you don't have to push anyone in the way of the train, you just redirect the train by using a lever. Fat Man scenario is seen as worse because he wasn't in the path of the train. You push him into the path of an oncoming train. Seen as morally worse.
