Yes, It is possible for the opportunity cost of an input to be very low or zero if there is no alternative use for it. It means that the statement is true.
The opportunity cost of an input is zero if it has no alternative use. This is so because the cost of alternatives refers to the value of the next best option. Since there isn't an alternative available in the scenario described, the opportunity cost is zero.
The opportunity cost of a certain activity option is defined as the loss of value or benefit that would result from engaging in that activity (the cost) as opposed to engaging in an alternative activity that offers a higher return in value or benefit in microeconomic theory.
To learn more about opportunity cost here
brainly.com/question/24319061
#SPJ4
Answer: they got beaten and killed by other prisneners
Explanation:
Answer:
No it would not have been successful because Gandhi and everyone else who started to create big movements never used force to convey the bigger message. The king in Britain would send troops to stop the uprising if he saw things were getting out of control. Nonviolence was a good approach because this allowed everyone's voices to be heard and prevent unwanted anger if something were to happen to the people that were trying to protest violently. This also effectively brought change to the world because the king really wanted peace in his territories. He only wanted them to be ruled by him and wanted no unrest. He didn't care what they talked about as long as the people didn't over throw him.
the pear industry crashes in the 1930s
