Table 1.1 shows the hypothetical trade-off between different combinations of Stealth bombers and B-1 bombers that might be produced in a year with the limited U.S.capacity,ceteris paribus. Table 1.1 Production Possibilities for Bombers \[\begin{array} { | l | c | c | c | c | } \hline \text { Combination } & \begin{array} { c } \text { Number of B- } \\ 1 \text { Bombers } \end{array} & \begin{array} { c } \text { Opportunity } \\ \text { cost(Foregone } \\ \text { Stealth) } \end{array} & \begin{array} { c } \text { Number of } \\ \text { Stealth Bombers } \end{array} & \begin{array} { c } \text { Opportunity cost } \\ \text { (Foregone B-1) } \end{array} \\ \hline \mathrm { S } & 0 & \text { NA } & 10 & \\ \hline \mathrm { T } & 1 & & 9 & \\ \hline \mathrm { U } & 2 & & 7 & \\ \hline \mathrm { V } & 3 & & 4 & \text { NA } \\ \hline \end{array}\] The lowest opportunity cost e in Table 1.1 for B-1 bombers in terms of Stealth bombers is

A) 0 Stealth bombers per B-1 bomber. B) 2 Stealth bombers per B-1 bomber. C) 1 Stealth bomber per B-1 bomber. D) 0.5 Stealth bomber per B-1 bomber. A) 0 Stealth bombers per B-1 bomber. B) 2 Stealth bombers per B-1 bomber. C) 1 Stealth bomber per B-1 bomber. D) 0.5 Stealth bomber per B-1 bomber.

Table 1.3 shows the hypothetical trade-off between different combinations of brushes and combs that might be produced in a year with the limited capacity for Country X,ceteris paribus. Table 1.3 Production Possibilities for Brushes and Combs \[\begin{array} { | l | c | c | r | r | } \hline \text { Combination } & \begin{array} { c } \text { Number of } \\ \text { combs } \end{array} & \begin{array} { c } \text { Opportunity } \\ \text { Cost(Foregone } \\ \text { brushes) } \end{array} & \begin{array} { c } \text { Number of } \\ \text { brushes } \end{array} & \begin{array} { c } \text { Opportunity Cost } \\ \text { (Foregone combs) } \end{array} \\ \hline \mathrm { J } & 4 & & 0& \text { NA } \\ \hline \mathrm { K } & 3 & & 10 & \\ \hline \mathrm { L } & 2 & & 17 & \\ \hline\mathrm { M} & 1 & & 21 & \\ \hline \mathrm { N } & 0 & \text { NA } & 23 & \\ \hline \end{array}\] On the basis of Table 1.3,in the production range of 21 to 23 brushes the opportunity cost of producing one more comb in terms of brushes is

A) 1/21. B) 21/23. C) 1/2. D) 4. A) 1/21. B) 21/23. C) 1/2. D) 4.

Table 1.3 shows the hypothetical trade-off between different combinations of brushes and combs that might be produced in a year with the limited capacity for Country X,ceteris paribus. Table 1.3 Production Possibilities for Brushes and Combs \[\begin{array} { | l | c | c | r | r | } \hline \text { Combination } & \begin{array} { c } \text { Number of } \\ \text { combs } \end{array} & \begin{array} { c } \text { Opportunity } \\ \text { Cost(Foregone } \\ \text { brushes) } \end{array} & \begin{array} { c } \text { Number of } \\ \text { brushes } \end{array} & \begin{array} { c } \text { Opportunity Cost } \\ \text { (Foregone combs) } \end{array} \\ \hline \mathrm { J } & 4 & & 0 & \text { NA } \\ \hline \mathrm { K } & 3 & & 10 & \\ \hline \mathrm { L } & 2 & & 17 & \\ \hline M & 1 & & 21 & \\ \hline \mathrm { N } & 0 & \text { NA } & 23 & \\ \hline \end{array}\] On the basis of Table 1.3,the highest opportunity cost for brushes in terms of combs is

A) 0.10 comb per brush. B) 23 combs per brush. C) 0.50 comb per brush. D) 0.29 comb per brush. A) 0.10 comb per brush. B) 23 combs per brush. C) 0.50 comb per brush. D) 0.29 comb per brush.

A) Is justified by the superiority of laissez faire over government intervention. B) Utilizes both market and nonmarket signals to allocate goods and services. C) Relies on the use of central planning by private firms rather than the government. D) Is one that allows trade with other countries. A) Is justified by the superiority of laissez faire over government intervention. B) Utilizes both market and nonmarket signals to allocate goods and services. C) Relies on the use of central planning by private firms rather than the government. D) Is one that allows trade with other countries.