Answer:
The correct option is B.
Explanation:
The marginal benefit is the maximum amount which a person or individual is willing to pay in order to have an additional service or benefit. It is the additional satisfaction, which the person receives when an additional service or good is purchased.
So, in this case, Cassie need or require some special fabric which cost her $200 that is the additional amount she need to pay in order to complete the task. But alternatively, she could sell the quilt for $900. Therefore, she had a marginal benefit of $900, if sells the quilt as is now.
Answer:
The answer is: the 80/20 rule
Explanation:
Applied in business, the 80/20 rule (also called the Pareto Principle), states that 20% of your customers account for 80% of your sales. It doesn´t necessarily need to be an exact proportion of 80/20, but as a rule it should help organize our time and activities in dealing with our most important customers.
As a general rule it applies to most activities of a person´s ordinary life, were 20% of the time we spend result in 80% of the benefits.
I'm not sure about this one. Are you talking about like this year?
Answer: option 3
Explanation:
Background to the case:
The cases involving the explosion of Ford Pinto's due to a defective fuel system design led to the debate of many issues, most centering around the use by Ford of a cost-benefit analysis and the ethics surrounding its decision not to upgrade the fuel system based on this analysis.
Basis of analysis:
Should a risk/benefit analysis be used in situations where a defect in manufacturing could lead to seriously bodily harm and even worse death, such as in the Ford Pinto situation?
Rule of the court:
There hasn’t really been a definite decision about the case and arguments both for and against such an analysis have been made. It is an economically efficient method which has been accepted by courts for numerous years, however, juries may not always agree, so companies should take this into account.
Discretion is expected to be used.
Answer:
Answer for the question
Some observers had argued that Uber’s greatest problem was not any of its scandals, but its CEO Travis Kalanick. Now that Kalanick no longer serves that role, how much better off is Uber really? Where do you come down? Do you think Kalanick’s reduced profile will turn the tide for Uber? Or is Kalanick’s drive and competitiveness necessary to Uber’s continued success, regardless of the title he holds? If you were on the board, what would you recommend? And why?
Is given in the attachment.
Explanation:
