Answer:
The correct answer is True.
Explanation:
The concept of “Disruptive Innovation” is relatively new, it was introduced by Clayton Christensen in 1997 in the book “The innovators dilemma” and refers to how a product or service that originally was born as something residual or as a simple application without Many followers or users quickly become the leading product or service in the market.
Disruption therefore occurs when emerging companies use new technologies or new business models and outperform the market that were the leaders until then.
There comes a time when users do not perceive as a differential advantage the type of evolutionary innovation that has been applied to a product, because they no longer need all those new features that the manufacturer has added to increase the profit and then the manufacturer becomes vulnerable and the evolution of that particular product ceases to be decisive, from that moment the price of that product can become decisive or another product will arrive with a new disruptive technology that will compete with the previous product and with the established technology. The most normal is that new products or services are easier to use and cheaper than products that were already on the market before and thus quickly capture the interest of consumers.
<span>c. common resources are rival in consumption.
In the tragedy of the commons, William Forster Lloyd presented the example of a common resource being over used and destroyed because for any individual abusing the resource, they gained a benefit while the damage to the resource was paid by everyone.
So let's look at the available options and see what makes sense, or doesn't make sense.
a. people consider the value of resources in the future more than in the present.
* If this were true, the there wouldn't be a tragedy of the commons. So this is an incorrect answer.
b. markets do not account for the presence of property rights.
* The tragedy of the commons doesn't involve property rights. EVERYONE in the community is allowed to use the commons. The problem is irresponsible overuse of the common resource. So this is also an incorrect answer.
c. common resources are rival in consumption.
* This is the correct answer. The concept of Rivalry is where a common resource can not be simultaneous consumed by multiple users, or if the consumption of a resource decreases its utility to another consumer. In the tragedy, if one person grazes (consumes) more than their fair share, the commons gets over grazed and over time stops producing. Each person who's overgrazing does get a tangible short term benefit for doing so, but everyone has to pay the cost.
d. government does not efficiently allocate society's scarce resources.
* This is also a wrong answer. It's true that the commons could be regulated by the government, but then it would no longer be the commons.</span>
Answer:
degree of operating leverage= 4
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Sales in North Corporation increased from $60,000 per year to $63,000 per year while net operating income increased from $10,000 to $12,000.
<u>The degree of operating leverage is the %change in the operating income, divided by the change in sales. It measures how much of the operating income varies with changes in sales.</u>
degree of operating leverage= % change on income/ % change on sales
degree of operating leverage= [(12,000 - 10,000)/10,000] / [(63,000 - 60,000)/60,000]
degree of operating leverage= 0.2 / 0.05= 4
Answer:
The present worth of their cost over a 10-year period at an interest rate of 10% per year is 114,627,795.36
Explanation:
Detailed steps are attached below
Answer:
The correct answer is letter "B": They should be ignored in a bidding war.
Explanation:
Negotiations are vital in every aspect. They allow individuals to deal with situations in which parties need from each other but either of them is willing to take the first step to come to an agreement. Negotiations can also be useful out of problematic situations when parties voluntarily want to make a pact but the initial terms are unclear.
Placing limits for negotiations is important as well. Limits will prevent parties from giving to much of themselves or avoiding the other party to take advantage of a given situation. Thus, in front of war, limits must be placed in a negotiation.
