Answer:
Acitivy B should be crashed first by 2 days and Activity B has a crash cost per days of $25, it will be crashed for a total of $50.
Explanation:
activity A =
normal time (NT) = 5 days
Normal cost (NC) = $0
crash time (CT) = 3 days
Crash cost (CC) = $500
crash cost per day = [CC - NC]/[CT - NT] = $250/day
activity B:
normal time (NT) = 6 days
Normal cost (NC) = $0
crash time (CT) = 4 days
Crash cost (CC) = $50
crash cost per day = [CC - NC]/[CT - NT] = $25/day
activity C:
normal time (NT) = 8 days
Normal cost (NC) = $0
crash time (CT) = 3 days
Crash cost (CC) = $1000
crash cost per day = [CC - NC]/[ CT- NT] = $200/day
The activity that takes the least cost to speed up is the first one to be crashed. from the computations, activity B takes the least cost to speed up, so the project manager should crash activity B first by 2 days.
Therefore, Acitivy B should be crashed first by 2 days and Activity B has a crash cost per days of $25, it will be crashed for a total of $50.
Answer:
$600.078
Explanation:
the mean is also the average which is the total sum divide by 5
The answer to this question is <span>5% and the quantity supplied rises by 7%.
A product is considered as elastic if the change in prices will also affect the changes in total supply.
Usually, this type of products are not considered unique or rare and there are a lot of substitute for this product in the market</span>
<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.
Answer:
Both Sabrina's nominal and real income increased
Explanation:
Her nominal income during 2017 was $100,000 and it increased to $105,000 during 2018, a $5,000 increase.
Sabrina's real income during 2017 was $100,000 (using 2017 as the base year), and her real income during 2018 was = $105,000 / 1.02 = $102,941. That means that her real income increased by $2,941
