Explanation:
A: Together their flat is $500, however if they were to live separately it'd be $350 per month. 350x2= 700. They save $200 by sharing a flat. However, if Karl plays John $175 a month to keep the dirty dishes away, then 200>175. Therefore, they should live together.
Karl could just live alone and pay the $350 to live alone with no dish problem. Since Karl will play $175 to rid the dish problem the highest rent he'll pay is 350-175=175. John would pay 500-175=325<350 this shows it better for John to live with Karl.
B: If living alone, John would pay £ 350. The highest monthly rent he would be willing to pay for the shared apartment is: £ 350- £ 30 = £ 320. This means that Karl would need to pay at least: £ 500- £ 320 = £ 180. But the highest monthly rent Karl would be willing to pay is : £ 175. They should live separately.
hope this helps you out a bit, I know its a lot. But its math, what do we expect. lol
Answer:
The correct option here is A).
Explanation:
Option A - is correct because according to the conclusion given in the argument, charitable institutions would have to reduce their services and some might have to close their doors , which means the assumption we are going to take will have a direct affect on these institutions , now if we assume that this assumption is false, that means whether this change comes or not charitable institutions will receive donations but that is not the case , so this option has to be correct.
Option B - this option is not right because it is nowhere said that these wealthy individuals are the only source of donations for charitable institution.
Option C - this option is also not correct because here no assumption is being made, the given statement is a consequence of not bringing the change.
Option D - this option is also not correct because there can be other individuals who can make donations.
Option E - this option is also not correct because here an alternative change to tax law is being talked about not the assumption of the argument.
First, you have to calculate the amount of tuition when the student reaches age 18. Do this by multiplying $11,000 by 1.07 each year from age 12 until it reaches age 18. Thus, 7 times.
At age 18: 16,508
At age 19: 17,664
At age 20: 18,900
At age 21: 20,223
Then, we use this formula:
A = F { i/{[(1+i)^n] - 1}}
where A is the monthly deposit each year, F is the half amount of the tuition each year illustrated in the first part of this solution, n is the number of years lapsed.
At age 18:
A = (16508/2) { 0.04/{[(1+0.04)^6] - 1}} = $1,244.389 deposit for the 1st year
Ate age 19
A = (17664/2) { 0.04/{[(1+0.04)^7] = $1,118 deposit for the 2nd year
At age 20:
A = (18900/2) { 0.04/{[(1+0.04)^8] = $1,025 deposit for the 3rd year
At age 21:
A = (18900/2) { 0.04/{[(1+0.04)^8] = $955 deposit for the 4th year
Answer:
Find the happy things in life :)
