<h3>
Answer: A. competition among producers</h3>
==========================================================
Explanation:
Competition reduces prices while also increasing the quality of the product or service. Companies that don't do such things will likely be out of business since the customer can go elsewhere for a better experience. The more competition, the better consumers are off.
In contrast, monopolies are bad for consumers because one company can set the price to whatever they want (to a certain level of course) and the customer has no choice to pay that price. The customer does not have any other option so the company is in full control. This leads to decline in quality because quality is often associated with cost. Safety standards may decline as well. So this is why monopolies are not good for the customer. In cases where there are monopolies, such as with power utilities, it is strongly advised that government regulations are put in place. This way the company doesn't completely exploit the customer.
In short, we can eliminate choice D because it runs counter to choice A.
Choice C can also be eliminated because if you had a decrease in supply, then the price of the product is likely to go up if you hold other factors in check (such as keeping the same level of demand). Higher prices do not benefit consumers unless those consumers had an equal or better wage increase.
A raise in interest rates means that it becomes more expensive to borrow money. For example, a raise in interest rates means that mortgage rates go higher. This negative is slightly counterbalanced with the fact that savings accounts interest rates go up as well. Overall, I think a rise in interest rates means that consumers ultimately pay more, so we can cross choice B off the list as well.
I would say B. because if the wealthy person dies the will verifies who all the money would go to.
A chimpanzee is homo sapiens sapiens, humans, closest relative. Both species share a common ancestor.
Answer:Barack Obama was describing to me the manner in which the Mongol emperor and war-crimes innovator Genghis Khan would besiege a town. “They gave you two choices,” he said. “‘If you open the gates, we’ll just kill you quickly and take your women and enslave your children, but we won’t slaughter them. But if you hold out, then we’ll slowly boil you in oil and peel off your skin.’”
This was not meant to be commentary on the Trump presidency—not directly, at least. In any case, Obama has more respect for Genghis Khan than he has for Donald Trump. He raised the subject of Genghis Khan in order to make a specific, extremely Obama-like point: If you think today’s world is grim, simply cast your mind back 800 years to the steppes of Central Asia. “Compare the degree of brutality and venality and corruption and just sheer folly that you see across human history with how things are now,” he said. “It’s not even close.”
Explanation:
