Answer:
The E.E.O.C: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Explanation:
Hope This Helps!!
Answer:
not being able to do buissnes with that company anymore
Explanation:
Answer:
I believe it's "a decrease in income if good X is an inferior good"
Explanation:
If the price is decreased people are more likely to buy it. If people have more money they are more likely to buy more thinks including good X. An increase in popularity with good X is sure to make more people want to buy it, so the second option is the only one that really makes sense.
Answer:
5
Explanation:
5?? okay I'm not sure here but if shes getting all 3 for 2 dollars a piece then she only spent $6 dollars. 5+4+2 is 11. 11-6 is 5
Note:
I wasn't able to access the Chester Income Statement but I successfully accessed a similar question Digby.
The Complete Question is as under:
Refer to the HR Reports in the Inquirer. Through past investments in recruiting and training Digby has obtained a productivity index of 109.6%. This means that Digby's labor costs would be increased by 9.6% if it did not have these productivity improvements. This is a competitive advantage that Digby can sustain or even widen further if its competitors have no HR initiatives. Now, refer to the Income Statement in Digby's Annual Report. How much did Digby's productivity improvements save it in direct labor costs (in thousands) last year?
A. $766
B. $29818
C. $3137
D. $3211
Answer:
Option D. $3,137
Explanation:
The Productivity Index of 9.6% shows that if the improvement plan is implemented then the efficiency gains would result in saving of 9.6% of total direct cost. So if we total the direct cost for the year for all of the four products then we have an amount of $32,680 which is given at the second last column.
The amount saved last year would be:
Savings = $32,680 * 9.6% = $3,137
Hence the option C is correct here.