Answer:
Reduce
Explanation:
The answer is that Berryhill chose to reduce the risk of being crippled by computer virus. A risk refers to the potential of having a situation that can cause a negative effect or the loss of something important. In this case, Berryhill reduced the risk because the company was worried that a computer virus would affect the operation and they decided to minimize this danger by installing an anti-virus and building a firewall.
Answer:
a. According to UPA Section 6, a partnership is
“the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit…whether or not the persons intend to form a partnership.”
b. "Association" means coming together to act as one.
c. Yes. They qualify as forming an "association."
d. Yes. The situation involved in the case involves "two or more persons."
e. Yes. The situation in the case involves a business being carried on for profit.
f. When we say the partners must be co-owners, it means that the "two or more persons" are joint owners. Each partner owns a part of the entity.
g. The four elements of the definition of a partnership are met. This implies that the two corporations could form a partnership under the UPA or the Revised UPA (RUPA).
Explanation:
The act clearly identified that a partnership must have two or more persons coming together to carry on the business for profit as co-owners. The implication is that there are four elements that must be met for an entity to be declared a partnership. They include: "association," "two or more persons," "carry on a business for profits," and "as co-owners."
Answer:
Option A, Randomization
Explanation:
Extraneous variables can be taken care of through randomization or random sampling. In random sampling, the extraneous variables are not deleted instead their equal distribution is ensured. Random sampling increases the external validity and generalize the population.
Hence, option A is correct
Answer:
Option D. The accountant was a member of a professional organization.
Explanation:
The reason is that for a successful claim under the negligence act, the claimant have to prove following three things:
- Duty of care existed between the relation
- She has suffered economic harm &
- The harm was proximately caused by the accountant's breach of the duty of care.
So the accountant's membership is not a valid requirement under the negligence act for a successful claim.
