Answer:
5,182 Units
Explanation:
The computation of additional units is given below:-
Operating income = Contribution Margin Per unit × Units - Fixed cost
= ($4.50 - $1.75) × 29,000 - 8,500
= $71,250
Operating income is increased by 20%
Operating income = $71,250 × 1.20
= $85,500
So, per units
$85,500 = ($4.50 - $1.75) × Units - 8,500
= $94,000 ÷ 2.75
= 34,181.82
Additional Units
= 34,181.82 - 29,000
= 5,182 Units
Answer:
a. project A; because its NPV is about $335 more than the NPV of project B.
Explanation:
As in the question it is mentioned that the required rate of return for project A and project B is 11.25% and 10.75% respectively.
Here we have to determined the net present value for both projects having different required rate of return
So based on the net present value the first option is correct as the project A is more than the project B
Therefore the first option should be accepted
Answer:
$200,000
Explanation:
This involves revenue recognition based on percentage of work completed (cost to completion technique). Revenue to be recognized per time is assessed based on the level of cost incurred compared with the total cost to be incurred.
Given that the total approved budget for the project is $600,000, If at the end of the first three weeks of work, $160,000 has been spent, and five miles of road have been completed for a a 15-mile road, the earned value of the project at the end of the first three weeks
= 5/15 * $600,000
= $200,000
Answer: True
Explanation: When the central monetary authority of a country attaches the value of their country's currency in relation to any other country's currency, then such an arrangement is called pegged exchange rate system.
The reference currency used by the authorities are generally of those countries which have a strong monetary base like US dollar or Euros.
Hence, from the above we can conclude that the given statement is true.
<u>Answer:</u>
<em>Sold product liability suit against the maker, alleging a design defect, the court may consider an available alternative design
</em>
<em></em>
<u>Explanation:</u>
At the core of the idea of faulty item configuration exemplified in the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product Liability is the accessibility of a sensible elective plan that could have diminished or kept away from the danger of mischief. In any case, a product might be defective, regardless of whether no sensible elective plan exists, if it neglects to give possible directions or warnings of a predictable danger of damage. An ongoing choice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court represents the use of these standards.
