Answer: Option (b) is correct.
Explanation:
Given that,
short-run equilibrium output = 10,000
income-expenditure multiplier = 10
potential output (Y*) = 9,000
Expenditure multiplier = 
10 =
Slope of AE function = 0.9
slope of AE = MPC (1-t) t =0,
MPC = 0.9
Delta Y (DY) = 1000
government expenditure multiplier ⇒ 
= 10
Delta G = 
= 
= 100
Government purchases must be Decrease by 100.
Answer:
40%
Explanation:
The computation of the return on equity is shown below:
= (Net income - interest expense) ÷ (weightage average of common stockholders' equity)
where,
Weightage average of common stockholders' equity equals to
= (Total common stockholders' equity at the beginning of the year + Total common stockholders' equity at the end of the year) ÷ 2
= ($410,000 + $290,000) ÷ 2
= $350,000
And, the other items values would remain the same
Now put these values to the above formula
So, the value would be equal to
= ($170,000 - $30,000) ÷ ($350,000)
= 40%
Answer:
Expound, cajoled, inscrutable, acrimony, exult, harry, fluctuate
Explanation:
Word banks
Fill in the blanks using these words: fluctuate, cajole, expound, acrimony, exult, inscrutable, metier, and harry.
Councilwoman moore stepped up to the podium. "i don't think i need to expound upon reasons for voting against the proposed construction; i thought that the message was clear enough at the last meeting--when you all opposed it as well. obviously, someone has cajoled a few of you into changing your opinion since last month, and your sudden, inscrutable decision to yield to beta-rad enterprises bothers me a great deal. what happened to the surplus of acrimony toward beta-rad from the last meeting? don't you remember how we exult in our victory over the radioactive waste dump? for two years, we've listened to beta-rad executives harry us, and we finally had the chance to stop it for good. how could the opinions of fifteen people possibly fluctuate this much?"
word bank:
Hello There!
Your answer would be <u>C). A tortious act may also be a criminal act.</u>
The reason why C would be your answer is because a tortious act is something that harms someone in any way. The reason why it "may" be a criminal act is because determine if the tortious act is a criminal act really depends on the scenario that is occurring. For example, someone could cause a tortious act in a way of self defense, this scenario would be debatable because the person that committed the tortious act had a valid reason in doing so, and that was protecting themselves. But, if a person was to cause a tortious act by hurting someone to steal from them, then that would definitely be a criminal act because they are performing dangerous things to someone else, and the person could file a lawsuit against it.
Let's dive into why the other answer choices are incorrect. We can use the old fashion process of elimination:
Answer choice "A). A tortious act is always a criminal act" is incorrect because it is not always a criminal act, it depends on the scenario it's in. This is the reason why this answer choice would be eliminated.
Answer choice "B). A criminal act is always a tortious act" is incorrect because there are MANY criminal acts that doesn't harm anyone, for example, tax evasion (not paying taxes) is a criminal act, but does not cause any harm to anyone. This is the reason why this answer choice would be eliminated.
Answer choice "D). A tortious act is the same as a contract dispute" is incorrect because harming someone is not the same as not doing what a contract says. A contact dispute is when someone that's part of a contract did not do a duty that the contract says that they're suppose to do, and that usually doesn't have to be any harm to anyone. That would not be the same as a tortious act, harming someone. This is the reason why this answer choice would be eliminated.
