Answer:
a. True
Explanation:
In the case when the applicant has crossed the starting process of screening after that the methods of the substantive selection would be used that involved the written test, performance test, interviews, etc
Therefore as per the given situation, the statement i.e. mentioned in the question is true
hence, the correct option is a.
Answer: When a firm is operating in a perfectly competitive labor market: <u>"the firm can buy as much or as little labor as it wants at a fixed, going wage rate."</u>
Explanation:
1- "the wage the firm increases with the number of workers hired" - Is incorrect because The salary paid by the company is treated as a constant salary.
2- Correct.
3- "the firm’s marginal expense of labor (MEL) equals the cost of all workers hired." is incorrect because the firm’s marginal expense of labor (MEL) is equal to the salary (wage) rate.
Answer: C. inefficiently low; inefficiently high
Explanation:
If the cotton farmers are not made to pay for the damage that their pesticides cost then they will maintain production at a relatively high level because their input costs will be relatively low. As a result of this high level of production, the price of the goods will be relatively low as well. The point at which both market equilibrium quantity and price are at in this scenario are considered inefficient because they are not taking into account, the true cost of production being the effects of the pesticides being used.
However, if they are made to pay for this negative externality that they are the cause of, it will increase their production cost and force them to reduce production to keep these costs low. As they reduce production, the market price will increase as supply is less.
<span>1.41
The quick ratio is the sum of assets that can be quickly liquidated divided by the liabilities. In this case, the assets are the cash of $316 and the accounts payable of $709. The inventory doesn't count since it can't be quickly converted to liquid assets. The liabilities are the accounts payable of $709. So let's do the math.
(316 + 687)/709 = 1003/709 = 1.41
So the result is 1.41</span>
<u>Answer: </u>
Benefits are amplified at a point where the minor income efficiency (MRP) is equivalent to the expense of employing a security watch. In this way, a benefit expanding firm will enlist as long as the MRP is more noteworthy than the wages or the expense of recruiting a security monitor.
On the off chance that I need to amplify benefit, at that point I won't enlist the security monitor at a compensation pace of $20 in light of the fact that the expense of recruiting is more noteworthy than the expansion to the complete income or MRP, which is equivalent to $15 (expecting that the security watchman will kill shoplifting).
The above examination shows that a security watchman will be paid a compensation rate for every hour, which is equivalent to the sum spared every hour by the security monitor for wiping out the normal shoplifting every hour.
The sum spared is an expansion to the all out income, and no benefit boosting firm would pay a compensation rate higher than the augmentations to the complete income.