Answer:
The correct answer is letter "A": relatively elastic.
Explanation:
Elasticity is the characteristic certain goods and services have of experiencing changes in quantity demanded as the prices change. Price elasticity of demand is calculated by dividing the percentage change in quantity demanded by the percentage change in price. If the result is equal to or greater than 1, the demand is elastic.
Demand is relatively elastic when small changes in prices cause large changes in quantity demanded. This happens when the goods or services in reference have many substitutes and the cost of switching providers is low.
Thus, <em>if a 1% change in the price of a given product changes its quantity demanded by more than 1%, the product is relatively elastic.</em>
Answer:
It will take 4 years 6 months.
Explanation:
Required here is the period, n for an investment to grow to $50,000 and this is calculated as follows :
Pv = - $15,000
Pmt = - $4,500
P/yr = 1
r = 12 %
Fv = $50,000
n = ?
Using a Financial Calculator, the period, n for an investment to grow to $50,000 is 4.50 or 4 years 6 months.
Answer:
188,000 units
Explanation:
For computing the equivalent units for material cost, first we have to compute the transferred units which is shown below:
= Beginning finished good inventory units + units started and completed units
= 31,000 units + 130,000 units
= 161,000 units
Now the equivalent units for material costs equal to
= Transferred units × percentage of completion + additional units in process × percentage of completion
= 161,000 units × 100% + 27,000 units ×60%
= 161,000 units + 27,000 units
= 188,000 units
Answer:
<em><u>The manufacturer of the toaster would argue from the point of view of the warranty offered for the toaster.</u></em> In most electronic products, the manufacturer offers warranty ranging from 1 year to 5 years.
<em>For the toaster to have worked for more than 20 years without any problem shows that it was a good product. And, the warranty must have expired hence the need not to be held responsible for whatever happened to it.</em>
Explanation:
The biggest losers in that case were the tax payers.
Under the <span> institutional treasury management case, it involved the frauding of millions of dollars that is hidden from a certain investment account.
If not being fraud ,These millions of dollar should've resulted in about 40% tax rate that will be used by the government for the benefit of the taxpayers in the form of welfare or other infrastructures</span>
