Answer:
<u>Mistake of ignoring secondary effects</u>
Explanation:
Whenever there arises an adverse impact of a policy and it's implementation, owing to ignorance of secondary consequences, it is termed as ignoring secondary effects.
In short, it refers to assessing and viewing only the positive aspects of a policy or a move, meanwhile not taking into consideration the other adverse consequences which are also associated with the same policy.
In the given case, the environmentalists have only considered the generation of alternative sources of energy via windmills which will lead to preservation of fossil fuels. The proposed policy has been implemented without taking into account it's flip side i.e the harm it causes to bat population and migratory birds.
Thus, it can be stated that the environmentalists herein only considered the favorable outcome of a policy implementation and ignored the adverse effect of the same. Hence, they are said to have committed the mistake of ignoring the secondary effects.
Answer:
c. $74,450
Explanation:
The computation of the Net present value is shown below
= Present value of all yearly cash inflows after applying discount factor + salvage value - initial investment
where,
The Initial investment is $120,000
All yearly cash flows would be
= Annual net operating cash inflows × PVIFA for 6 years at 14%
= $50,000 × 3.8887
= $194,435
Refer to the PVIFA table
Now put these values to the above formula
So, the value would equal to
= $194,435 - $120,000
= $74,435 approx
The correct answer is B. A low inflation rate! I hope this helps you!
For ......................Income tax
Answer:
$3,515
Explanation:
The computation of the catering supplies is shown below:
= Catering supplies per month + per job cost × expected number of jobs + per meal cost × expected number of meals
= $350 + $89 × 21 jobs + $9 × 144 meals
= $350 + $1,869 + $1,296
= $3,515
Since the question is asking for planning budget so we considered the expected units in terms of jobs and meals