Answer:
Semi-strong form efficiency.
Explanation:
Semi-strong form efficiency contends that security prices have factored in publicly-available market and that price changes to new equilibrium levels are reflections of that information. It is considered the most practical of all Efficient Market Hypothesis(EMH) hypotheses but is unable to explain the context for material nonpublic information (MNPI). It concludes that neither fundamental nor technical analysis can be used to achieve superior gains and suggests that only MNPI would benefit investors seeking to earn above average returns on investments.
Answer:
Katie Kwasi's Utility Function
The units of x1 that she will consume after the change in income is:
= 40 units of x1
Explanation:
a) Data and Calculations:
Katie Kwasi’s utility function, U(x1, x2) = 2(ln x1) + x2
Current consumption = 10 units of x1 and 15 units of x2
When her income doubles, with prices staying constant, Katie will consume:
= 2(2 * 10 of x1) + 15 of x2
= 40 units of x1 + 15 units of x2
Therefore, she will consume 40 units of x1 and 15 units of x2
b) The above function expresses mathematically Katie's utility to be a function of the units of x1 and x2 that she can consume, given her income constraint. If her income doubles, Katie will consume double units of x1 and the same units of x2 as she was consuming before the change in income.
Answer:
Target Marketing
Explanation:
Candy's Clothes is engaging in target marketing because it is tailoring its marketing strategy (and its products) to a specific, narrowly-defined group of people, which can be thought of as the firm's niche.
This strategy is useful when companies have a clear idea of what demographic group they want to sell. Other firms have products with a broader appeal, and therefore, are better off using other marketing strategies that can reach a larger group of people.
Answer:
The answer is B. Ethan has more experience than Karen.
Explanation:
Now, lets take each Answer option separately and see why only B is correct.
Option A is no longer legally accepted or ethical. Perhaps during the era of segregation back in 1960s' this option could have been acceptable. But today it is illegal and is considered as a violation of basic human rights.
Option C is not correct as well because although people with special needs and physical requirements are entitled to receive certain special treatments, paying them more solely based on their disability is not considered suitable nor ethical.
Option D is unacceptable. No one can assume that men have more stamina than women. There are competent, strong and qualified women who can do their jobs much better than men. So we cannot accept this as an answer.
Option E is incorrect as well. Although a person could be an immigrant, once that person has lawfully taken the citizenship of a country, that "immigrant" is considered as a "citizen" of that country (this is not applicable for illegal immigrants!).
However, we can take option B as the answer. This is because when comparing a new employee with a more experienced employee, we can't see any problem in paying the experienced employee more.
