Factual messages are characterized by which of the following?
a. Include your interpretations of why something has happened
b. Should start with a phrase like "I think…" or "In my opinion…"
c. Can be about the past, present, or future
d. Can include assumptions about what is being reported
e. They only describe what can be seen, heard, felt, touched, or tasted
e
You might also like to view...
Last year, Hart Company had credit sales in the amount of $1,000,000, and it had uncollectible accounts in the amount of $15,000 . Based on last year, what would the estimated percent of uncollectible accounts be this year?
a. 0.15%; b. 1.5%; c. 15%; d. 150%; e. cannot be determined.
Which of the following parties has the responsibility for designing and maintaining policies and procedures to identify, evaluate, and account for contingencies?
a. Management. b. The auditor. c. The audit committee. d. The client's attorney.
Grandma's Jellies Inc Grandma's Jellies Inc produces and distributes a variety of jellies. Two hundred jars of jelly are produced in a single batch. The following activities are performed per batch: Activity Hours Processing (two departments) 6 Inspecting 1 Moving (three moves) 3 Waiting (for the second process) 4 Storage (before delivery to the customer) 10 Refer to the Grandma's Jellies Inc
information above. The manufacturing cycle efficiency per batch is: A) 29.2%. B) 41.7%. C) 25.0%. D) 83.3%.
In the Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Inc case discussed in the text, plaintiffs sued the defendant Canadian corporation in a United States court, regarding an order under CERCLA pertaining to its contamination of water in Canada that reached the U.S. Was the Canadian corporation subject to the courts of the United States?
a. The court ruled that the defendant lacked the minimum contacts necessary to require it to submit to the jurisdiction of a U.S. court. b. The court ruled that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist. c. The court ruled that the defendant was subject to jurisdiction in the U.S. court. d. The court ruled that the defendant lacked the minimum contacts necessary to require it to submit to the jurisdiction of a U.S. court and that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist.