Answer:
Check the explanation
Explanation:
a) Dan is a "Supplier" of funds.
b) Jon is a demanded of funds.
c) Savers save more when the real interest rate is "increase" and the supply of the loanable fund slopes "upward".
d) Borrowers like JOn are likely to borrow more when the interest rate is "decreasing " adn therefore, the demand for loanable funds slope "Downward".
Answer and Explanation:
The journal entry is shown below:
Cash $8,200
To Notes receivable $8,000
To Interest revenue ($8,000 × 10% × 90 days ÷ 360 days) $200
(being the collection of notes is recorded)
For recording this we debited the cash as it increased the asset and credited the notes receivable and interest revenue as it decreased the assets and increased the revenue
Answer:
It does not
Explanation:
In this question, we are asked to evaluate if a particular transaction carried out between a customer and an inn falls within the dictates of the local consumer protection law in the state.
Firstly, we look at what the local consumer protection law of the state talks about. It explicitly stated that customers should get receipts when suppliers receive deposits from them. Thus, this make the receipt act as the first thing to have if there would be any claim under the consumer protection law for the transaction carried out in the state.
Now, looking at the particular scenario we have, the customer paid for the room, but he was not issued a receipt. This makes the case not treatable within the consumer protection law of the state as the receipt which should have been a prerequisite for further exploration is not available
Answer:
Explanation:
weight average = fraction of A X MW of A + fraction of B x MW of B
Mixture 1
1 / 3 x 100000 + 2/3 x 400000 = 900000 / 3 = 300000
Mixture 2
2/3 x 100000 + 1/3 x 400000 = 600000 / 3 = 200000
Number average
Mixture 1
(1 / 100000 x 100000 + 2 / 400000 x 400000) / (1/100000 + 2/400000 )
= 3 x 400000 / 6
= 200000
Mixture 2
(2/100000 x 100000 + 1/400000 x 400000 )/ (2/100000 + 1 / 400000 )
3 x 400000 / 9
=( 4/3 ) x 100000
Answer:
A. Using a cap-and-trade system of tradable emission allowances will eliminate half of the sulfur dioxide pollution at a cost of $5,000 million per year.
B. If permits cannot be traded, then the cost of the pollution reduction will be $6,000 million per year
Explanation:
A. Using a cap-and-trade system of tradable emission allowances will eliminate half of the sulfur dioxide pollution at a cost of $5,000 million per year.
(250x20) =$5000
B. If permits cannot be traded, then the cost of the pollution reduction will be $6,000 million per year
[250(10)+350(10)]
=$2,500+$3,500
=$6,000
