Which of the following taxonomic categories is least likely to be later revised for a particular organism?
select one:
a. kingdom
b. phylum
c. species
d. order
e. class

(30 total points) suppose a firm’s production function is given by q = l1/2*k1/2. the marginal product of labor and the marginal product of capital are given by: mpl = 1/ 2 1/ 2 2l k , and mpk = 1/ 2 1/ 2 2k l . a) (12 points) if the price of labor is w = 48, and the price of capital is r = 12, how much labor and capital should the firm hire in order to minimize the cost of production if the firm wants to produce output q = 18?

This problem has been solved! see the answercompute and interpret altman's z-scoresfollowing is selected financial information for ebay, for its fiscal years 2005 and 2006.(in millions, except per share data) 2006 2005current assets $ 4,970.59 $ 3,183.24current liabilities 2,518.39 1,484.93total assets 13,494.01 11,788.99total liabilities 2,589.38 1,741.00shares outstanding 1,368.51 1,404.18retained earnings 4,538.35 2,819.64stock price per share 30.07 43.22sales 5,969.74 4,552.40earnings before interest and taxes 1,439.77 1,445.18compute and interpret altman z-scores for the company for both years. (do not round until your final answer; then round your answers to two decimal places.)2006 z-score = answer2005 z-score = answerwhich of the following best describes the company's likelihood to go bankrupt given the z-score in 2006 compared to 2007.the z-score in 2006 is half of the 2005 score. both z-scores are well above the score that represents a healthy company.the z-score in 2006 is double the 2005 score. the z-score has increased sharply, which suggests the company has greatly increased the risk of bankruptcy.the z-score in 2006 is half of the 2005 score. the z-score has decreased sharply, which suggests the company is in financial distress.the z-score in 2006 is double the 2005 score. the z-score has increased sharply, which suggests the company has greatly lowered the risk of bankruptcy.

Kendra knight took part in a friendly game of touch football. she had played before and was familiar with football. michael jewett was on her team. in the course of play, michael bumped into kendra and knocked her to the ground. he stepped on her hand, causing injury to a little finger that later required its amputation. she sued michael for damages. he defended on the ground that she had assumed the risk. kendra claimed that assumption of risk could not be raised as a defense because the state legislature had adopted the standard of comparative negligence. what happens if contributory negligence applies? what happens if the defense of comparative negligence applies?