Answer:
the amount that should be show more money for spending is $80
Explanation:
The computation of the amount that should be show more money for spending is as follows;
= Certificate of deposit × reward for saving or postponing consumption percentage
= $1,000 × 8%
= $80
hence, the amount that should be show more money for spending is $80
Answer:
1. The most that the farmer would pay to rent 20 acre is $100.
2. The price of wheat rose to $6 per bushel is $900.
Explanation:
Given the information, we have:
Total cost per acre
= $35 + $80 + $70 = $185
Revenue from wheat per acre
= 40 x $5 = $200
Contribution per acre = $200 - $185 = $15
The most that the farmer would pay to rent 20 acre is
==>20 x ($15 - $10) = $100
If the price of wheat rose to $6, the most that farmer would pay
= 20 x (240 - 185 - 10)
= $900
When the court renders an opinion, the Chief Justice- when in the majority-decides who writes the courts' opinion. So the answer is C
According to the case, the use of Ph.D. on the ads for hair care products by John Smith is considered an example of the fallacy of inappropriate expertise.
The provided statement is true.
<h3>What is a fallacy?</h3>
A fallacy is an unlawful statement that is used by someone in stating any reasoning or argument which can even be harmful to society.
In the given case, John is having Ph.D. degree in the archaeology field, and his attempt to use the word Ph.D. on the haircare goods marketed by him would be a fallacy in respect of inappropriate expertise. The fallacy could be the use of the Ph.D. word on ads and the inappropriate expertise is that he doesn't have any knowledge regarding skincare and dermatology area.
Therefore, this may create a harmful effect on the individuals who are buying them as it is not authorized by a dermatologist.
Learn more about the fallacy in the related link:
brainly.com/question/2516239
#SPJ1
Depends on what you are trying to fix
