Answer:
The correct answer is A) inconsistent reasoning; saving $20 is saving $20.
Explanation:
Tony is making an uninformed decision or more strictly, his reasoning is inconsistent. A flat discount of $20 is applicable to all products. Whether he buys something that is worth $50 or $500, his savings would still be the same.
All other options are wrong. If e.g. he this was a flat 20% discount, his savings would have been much different. e.g. 20% of $50 is $10 while it equals to a $100 for a $500 product.
At this point, he would have to make rational decision on what he really needs to buy.
180 days of the most recent paycheck reflecting the discrepancy.
Answer:
The interpretation of the particular question is outlined in the following segment on the clarification.
Explanation:
The facility was indeed 20 percent full by either the end of December 2017 therefore the 3,00,000 would still have been recognized as an expenditure.
The facility also seems to be 45 percent complete at either the end of 2018, meaning that the 3,75,000 will have been accepted as expenditures,
⇒ 
By most of the end of the decade, the financial sheet provides a snapshot 6,75,000 although this debt would be,
⇒ 
So 3,75,000 should have been shown as the cost of the rest in the financial information for 2018, as well as 6,75,000 would have been shown as contractual obligations.
<span>It is not necessary to build a new market supply schedule </span><span>when there is a change in the price of a good
</span>