Since supply of pizza has shifted from S1 to S2 , it means that the supply of pizzas has increased. The supply of pizza has increased and the reason why S1 shifted to S2 because the price of the labor for pizza shops went down. Since the price of labour went down the cost of production of pizza also decreased. Therefore, the producer can now make more profit by selling the pizza at the same price. Therefore the producer would supply more. Hence there would be an increase in supply and so the supply curve has shifted from S1 to S2. Therefore the correct option is the price of labour for pizza shops went down.
S1 10-- 25 50 ssume the graph shown represents the market for plzzas sold In an...
Assume the graph shown represents the market for pizzas sold in an hour. If the original equilibrium was D and S1, which of the following could be a reason S1 shifted to S2? Multiple Choice The price of pizza sauce has increased. The price of pizza went down. The price of labor for pizza shops went down. None of these things would cause such a shift. S1 S2 10 F-_ 5 25 50 C)
51 20 15 10 D2 5 D 10 20 30 40 C Assume the market in the graph shown was originally at an equilibrium with demand D and supply S. Suppose Demand shifts and becomes D>. What might have caused such a shift? 5) A) The good became more popular. B) Substitutes for this good became less expensive. 9 The good became cheaper to produce. D) People expect the price of this good to drop in the near future. 6)...
FART I TRUE FALSE QUESTIONS (10 points). Please write True (1) or False (F) on the blank Scarcity is the intimited nature of society's resources given society's limited wants 2. A reward is a type of positive incentive. 3. To remove difficulty of double coincidence of wants we use money. 4. An exogenous factor is a variable that can be controlled for inside the model. 5. The PPF will not have a constant slope. 6. The law of demand states...
Case review for Alaska Packers Assoc. v Domenico (9th Circuit, 1902) Issue, Ruling, Application, Conclusion ROSS, Circuit Judge. The libel in this case was based upon a contract alleged to have been entered into between the libelants and the appellant corporation on the 22d day of May, 1900, at Pyramid Harbor, Alaska, by which it is claimed the appellant promised to pay each of the libelants, among other things, the sum of $100 for services rendered and to be rendered....