Answer:
Option A
Explanation:
A biased sample is the one in which only that part of a lot is chosen as sample which works with the decision desired. As for in the given case, the store chooses to receive a review from the customers who are happy.
A smiling face confirms that the person is happy with the store service.
Thus, when we provide them the comment card maximum feasibility is that they shall write back a positive comment about the store service.
In this manner if comment card is not provided to unhappy customers, the opinion formed is a biased opinion.
Final Answer
Only customers with happy faces are given an option to fill the comment card.
Answer:
Usage variance = $22,564.5 unfavorable
Explanation:
<em>A material usage variance occurs when the standard quantity required to active a particular level of production is higher or lower than than the actual actual quantity used. A favorable variance would mean than less quantity of materials were used than the standard to achieve a given output level. And an adverse variance would mean the opposite</em>
Pounds
850 units should have used ( 850× 5.9 pounds) 5,015
but did use <u> 6,550</u>
Usage variance 1,535 unfavorable
× standard price <u> $14.70</u>
Usage variance <u> 22,564.5</u> unfavorable
Usage variance = $22,564.5 unfavorable
Answer:
the overhead rate is $50 per machine hour
Explanation:
The computation of the overhead rate is shown below:
Predetermined overhead rate
= Estimated total Overhead ÷ Estimated total machine hour
= $10,000,000 ÷ 200,000 hours
= $50 per machine hour
hence, the overhead rate is $50 per machine hour
The same should be considered and relevant
The correct answers to these open questions are the following.
Maple Farms, Inc. v. City School District of Elmira.
Could something like this bankrupt a company?
Yes, it can, if the proper forecast were not done taking into consideration all of the possible variables at medium and long-range.
Do you agree with the decision?
It was a tough decision because the court declared in its decision that the performance was not impracticable, as Maple Farm Inc indicated when decided to break the contract.
In strict theory, I agree with the court's decision because the explanation was that an "impractical" occurred when an event happened totally unexpected. And in this case, Mapple Farm Inc could have taken extra provisions knowing that milk had a 10% increase the last year and had the chance of more increases in the present year.
That is how a company can avoid this type of situation. Taking better provisions, contemplating all kinds of variables, knowing that in the future, something unexpected can happen and could be prevented with the proper forecast.
