Answer:
b. excludable and rival in consumption
Explanation:
For categorizing the goods as private or public, the two terms we need to understand i.e. rivalry and excludability
The rivalry refers only one person could consume it no other has the right to consume the same thing
While on the other hand, the excludable arise when you stop someone from using a particular thing
So here in the given case, the option b is most appropriate as it is fit to the scenario
Answer and Explanation:
1. After discovering about the value of local group ethical leadership, year before. The students naturally experienced most of your work and gratefully asked for the chance for your existence to make a major impact on our next generation of leaders.
The first option is the better option as the next paragraph provides a meaning. The next paragraph starts with 'therefore' It appears to be relatable
2. Even before central message, it does not explain the reasons, and it has no reader advantages.
The meaning as a whole is fairly ambiguous and inconsistent. The reasoning isn't very powerful and there seems to be a lack of compassion.
3. Typically a claim or complaint response ends with a service provider 's expectation. The author must submit a reasonable request in this situation.
Answer:
easy i fk ow how to die dofbe hahaha eituw gutny
<span>The question refers to whether that scenario describes a competitive market, and the answer is - no. This scenario that you have presented us with is not an example of a competitive market because there is no free entry. Because firms cannot freely enter this market, this cannot be said to be competitive, because there are no companies to compete if there is only one firm involved. </span>