Answer:
non-directive interview
Explanation:
Josh has attended as a non-directive interview. A non-directive interview is a technique where questions are not prearranged. Unstructured or Non-directive interview, for the most part, have no set arrangement. The absence of structure permits the questioner to pose inquiries according to the answers of the candidate. The interviewer can ask any questions because the questions are not prearranged.
The most efficient and effective in managing its inventory is Company B.
<h3>Who is the most efficient?</h3>
The days' sales in inventory is a financial ratio that measures the rate at which a firm is able to sell its inventory in a given year. The lower the ratio, the more efficient a firm is in selling its inventory.
Days' sales in inventory = number of days in a period / inventory turnover
Inventory turnover = cost of goods sold / average inventory
To learn more about financial ratios, please check: brainly.com/question/26092288
#SPJ1
Answer:
a. $3,780,000
Explanation:
According to the scenario, calculation of the given data are as follows
New equipment = $3,600,000
Shipping and installation = $180,000
We can calculate the total cost of Martson's new equipment by using following formula,
Total Cost = New equipment cost + Shipping and Installation cost
By putting the value, we get
Total Cost = $3,600,000 + $180,000
= $3,780,000
Answer:
These are the options for the question:
A. They should be more willing to tear down the $5 million stadium, because it cost less to build.
B. They should be more willing to tear down the $50 million stadium, because it cost more to build.
C. The cost to build the old stadium shouldn’t be considered.
And this is the correct answer:
A. They should be more willing to tear down the $5 million stadium, because it cost less to build.
Explanation:
City A will likely be more willing to tear down its old stadium because it costed $5 million to build. City B, on the other hand, will have to think twice because a stadium that costed $50 billion to build could have more value than it seems, or the City could simply not have enough money to build a better new stadium (something that would probably cost more than $50 billion to do).
