Answer:
$544
Explanation:
LIFO means last in first out. It means it's the last purchased inventory that is the first to be sold.
The cost of the 250 units sold would be first deducted from the inventory purchased on the 25th
= 100 × 2.34 = $234
That leaves 250 - 100 = 150 units.
The cost of goods sold would be next allotted to the inventory purchased on the 9th
= 50 × 2.20 = $110
This leaves 150 - 50 = 100
The cost of the 100 would be alloted to the beginning inventory
100 × $2 = $200
Total cost of goods sold = $200 + $110 + $234 = $544
I hope my answer helps you
Answer:
The correct answer is the option B: Chief Security Officer.
Explanation:
To begin with, a <em>Chief Security Officer</em> or CSO is the most important senior level executive that an organization has in its team whose main purpose is to <em>develop and oversight policies and programs whose primary focus are on the mitigation and reduction of secutiry risk</em> regarding the protection of people, intellectual assets and tangible property.
Secondly, the security of the organization regarding the fact of cyber attacks does have a cooperative inter-connected involvement, where the figure of <em>Chief Information Security Officer</em> appears and combines their function with the CSO. Moreover, the CISO is the one executive inside the organization that <em>focuses to the problems about ensuring information assets in particular</em>.
Answer:
d. the Circular Flow Model
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that this statement is an example of the Circular Flow Model. This model (like mentioned in the question) illustrates the flow of cash from different people or company's in different industries. Where one person/company pays another, which takes it in as income and uses that to pay another company for what they need and so on.
Answer:
- I think Ben should encourage the Senior Management to call a multidisciplynary meeting and do some research.
Explanation:
<em>I think Ben is right</em>. Even though the statement is technically correct, it may mislead customers.
Customers may interpret the phrase "<em>no sugar added</em>" as if the product did not contain any sugar.
Thus, customers interested in drinking beverages without sugar at all might think they are "safe" consuming the smoothie beverage, when in reallity each <em>smoothie's bottle contains sugar 35 g of naturally occurring sugars from the fruit.</em>
Customers deserve to be certain on what they are buying, thus the labels must be a sincere help for them, and not ambiguos at all.
This is a "gray zone" and an example of what in ethics is called a dilema.
I think the decision should be shared by a wider team and based on some research.
I think Ben should encourage the Senior Management to call a multidisciplynary meeting, where the subject is widely discussed. Also, I would suggest Ben to do some research, look for precedents about labeling in the industry, and try to learn the opinion of the FDA about this sensitive matter.
