Answer:
If the special offer earns a positive contribution margin, we should accept the special order.
Explanation:
Given that,
No. of suites in luxury hotel = 160
Regular suite rate = $210 per night per suite
Hotel’s cost per night = $135 per suite
Variable direct labor and materials cost = $36
Fixed cost = 99
Total cost per night per suite = $135
Contribution margin per night per suite:
= Room rate per night - Variable cost per night
= $94 - $36
= $58
Contribution margin from special offer:
= Contribution margin per night per suite × Number of nights × Number of suits
= $58 × 3 × 45
= $7,830
Management should accept the special offer.
When the company receives offer, the hotel is running at low season. occupancy rate is 55%
If the special offer earns a positive contribution margin, we should accept the special order.
Room rate is $94 for special order.
Answer:
A) $474,000
Explanation:
Since Balsco's balance sheet shows total assets of $238,000 and total liabilities of $107,000, it means that equity should be $131,000.
The current price of Balsco's stock is $11 per share and total shares outstanding are 55,000, which results in a total market value of $605,000. If you subtract total equity from the total market value = $605,000 - $131,000 = $474,000
Answer:
Firm should not shut down, as it is able to cover its Average Variable Cost
Explanation:
Perfect Competition firms in Short Run : The firms produce even if their average revenue (price) < their average total costs (AC). They continue production until Average variable cost (AVC) ≥ per unit price (P) i.e average revenue (AR). This is called Shut Down Point. P lower beyond AVC implies that firm won't continue even in short run.
Given : Variable Cost (VC) = 500 ; Revenue (R) = 510
Average Variable Costs & Average Revenue are variable costs & revenue, per unit quantity. AVC = VC / Q ; AR (P) = R / Q
R i.e 510 > VC i.e 500
So, R/ Q i.e AR is also > VC / Q i.e AVC
Since AVC > AR (P), firm should not shut down
Answer:
- <u><em>D. It has both good and bad effects, but we can't always predict what those are.</em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
Explanation:
Of course, ethics mandates that the target of science and <em>new technology </em>should always pursue the good for humans; nevertheless, since time immemorial man has developed technology to make war. Thus, definetely, the first statement <em>"A It always does good for human"</em> is false.
Some other negative effects of <em>new technology</em>, like cars and nuclear power, have been harmful to the environment, but you cannot tell that this has always been so. Technology has also been developed to help the environment. For instance, panels to use solar energy do not harm the environment and seek to reduce fuel burning to help the environment. Thus, option <em>B, "It always ends up doing harm to the environment"</em> is false too.
Some of the damage that new technology can produce are not predicted both because the technology is new and because it may be used with different goals to those it was developed. This explains why option <em>C, It has many bad effects</em>, is false, and option <em>D, "It has both good and bad effects, but we can't always predict what those are", </em>is true.
<span>part of a contractionary fiscal policy</span>