Answer:
C. Price changes in markets provide suppliers incentives to supply goods to markets.
Explanation:
Price changes in the market has two perspective,
- increase in price, will increase the productivity for retailers,
- decrease in price, will decrease the productivity for retailers.
With increase the retailers expect to earn more, and with decrease the retailers expect to earn less.
This is a normal market condition and scenario, this does not link to any kind of political or legal environment, although the change in price might be due to political or legal policies, but the increase or decrease in productivity, is not related to any political or legal influence.
It would be an informative resource
Answer: 3. a motion to dismiss.
Explanation:
When a party believes that a case has no legal basis, in other words the party does not believe that what they did warrants a court case, they would file a motion to dismiss so as not to waste resources fighting something they see as frivolous.
In this case, NuProducts is essentially filing a motion to dismiss when they say that they did nothing wrong according to the law. They would prefer if the courts simply dismissed the case so that they would not incur costs to fight the case.
Answer:
Jobs argument
Explanation:
-The national-security argument states that some industries have to be protected by imposing tariffs to maintain the local production in case of a war.
-The unfair-competition argument says that the domestic market has to be protected when there is unfair competition because companies from other countries are subject to different regulations.
-Using-protection-as-a-bargaining-chip argument states that the threat of imposing a restriction can help to eliminate a restriction that was imposed by another country.
-Infant-industry argument says that new industries have to be protected because they don't have economies of scales that their competitors from others countries have.
-The jobs argument claims that the trade with other countries eliminates the local jobs.
According to this, the answer is that the senator is using the jobs argument to argue for the trade restriction on steel rods because he claims that it is necessary to impose those restrictions to protect the workers from losing their jobs.
