Answer:
Bundle 1: Beer = 2; Pizza = 6
Bundle 2: Beer = 3; Pizza = 4
Bundle 3: Beer = 4; Pizza = 3
Bundle 4: Beer = 12; Pizza = 1
Explanation:
Given that;
Lisa utility function UF(X,Y) = 4XY
where;
X = beer
Y = Pizza
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9f695/9f69505b00cf9c776282d3e0819cb796fb5adcfd" alt="MU_X = 4Y"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f1f2a/f1f2ae9f5a796c038b24994fcb792eb9176ab2cc" alt="MU_Y = 4X"
The utility level = 48
so, UF(X,Y) = 4XY
putting different values of X (i.e beer ) given to us in this equation, we can calculate the values of Y(i.e pizza) to fulfill the utility
So; when X (beer) = 2
48 = 4×2×Y
48 = 8Y
Y = 48/8
Y = 6
Thus, Bundle 1: Beer = 2; Pizza = 6
when X (beer) = 3
48 = 4×3×Y
48 = 12 Y
Y = 48/12
Y = 4
Thus; Bundle 2: Beer = 3; Pizza = 4
when X (beer) = 4
48 = 4×4×Y
48 = 16 Y
Y = 48/16
Y = 3
Thus; Bundle 3: Beer = 4; Pizza = 3
when X(beer) = 12
48 = 4×12×Y
48 = 48 Y
Y = 48/48
Y = 1
Thus; Bundle 4: Beer = 12; Pizza = 1
I think is 475848 because I just timed by 48 so I got 475848
The answer to this should be 24.65.
I could be wrong but I think you are suppose to add.
Hope this helped :)
Have a great day
Answer:
a. a smaller increase in the marginal product of labor.
Explanation:
The law of diminishing returns to physical capital states that as more and more input are added to fixed factors of production, output increases at a decreasing rate.
For there to be output growth, physical capital should be increased less than human capital and technological progress.
I hope my answer helps you
Answer:
The correct answer is letter "A": for negligence because the harm was foreseeable.
Explanation:
In Law, foreseeability is a concept related to what the proximate causes could be after an event. The concept is helpful to determine the limit of liability according to the primary event that happened and the type and manner of harm. The harm caused by rescuers like firefighters and negligence of health care providers like doctors and nurses is considered foreseeable.
<em>In Emmy's case, the repeated thefts to the store where she works while having a nonfunctioning alarm (negligence) make the store owner liable for the injuries caused by a perpetrator who broke Emmy's leg during a robbery since that event was foreseeable.</em>