The degree of risk is associated with the probability or magnitude of loss. The given statement is true.
The area of mathematics known as probability deals with numerical representations of the likelihood that an event will occur or that a statement is true. An event's probability is a number between 0 and 1, where, roughly speaking, 0 denotes the event's impossibility and 1 denotes certainty.
Simply put, probability is the likelihood that something will occur. When we don't know how an event will turn out, we can discuss the likelihood or likelihood of several outcomes. Statistics is the study of events that follow a probability distribution.
Learn more about probability here
brainly.com/question/24756209
#SPJ4
The appropriate action would be: C. <span>Thank the taxpayer, and explain that you cannot accept any payment for your services.
Government workers couldn't receive cash payment in any kind unless there is a necessary administrative purpose.
They could on the other hand, receives Gifts that held the value less than $ 20</span>
Answer:
D. The outlet substitution bias injects an upward bias into the CPI
Explanation:
Answer:
The right solution is "13,675 U".
Explanation:
According to the question,
The standard material cost will be:
= 
= 
= 
The actual material cost will be:
= 
= 
hence,
The total material price variance will be:
= 
= 
= $
(Unfavorable)
Answer:
This was an actual court case that ended in the Court of Appeals of the First District of California. Initially a lower court had ruled against the Sharabianlous and set extremely high compensations for damages to Berenstein. I do not understand why the court did it since it was proven that the land was contaminated and couldn't be sold under unless cleaned.
Finally, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the Sharabianlous, not because they thought they were right, but due to errors in the original trial.
The big issue in this case was that the contract signed by the Sharabianlous wasn't clear enough about what would happen if the land was not suitable for sale and they also failed to seek a lawyer when the contamination issues became obvious. If you read the case, even the real estate broker acted against the Sharabianlous when the property was appraised since he didn't tell the appraiser about the contamination issues.
The final ruling was made in 2010, 8 years after the parties engaged in the transaction, which gives us an idea of how complicated things can get when legal procedures are not followed, even though the outcome should be obvious.
If I was part of a jury and the case was about property that couldn't be sold due to contamination, I would probably vote in favor of the buyer, not the seller. It's common sense, but sometimes it you do not follow the appropriate legal path, common sense makes no sense at all.
