If this economy moved from point P to point N, then

a. there would be no gain in either engines or tvs.
b. it would be producing more engines and more tvs than at point P.
c. it still would not be producing efficiently.
d. It is not possible for this economy to move from point P to point N without additional resources.

Option C is correct one.

It still would not be producing efficiently.

Explanation:

Creation plausibility outskirts of an economy shows blend of two merchandise that an economy can deliver completely utilizing its assets and with given condition of innovation.  

All mixes of two merchandise that lie on PPF infer effective creation. Mixes that exist in PPF suggest proficient creation.  

On the off chance that we examine both mix P and N, at that point we can see that both are existing in or underneath PPF. Subsequently, if economy is delivering either at P or N, creation is wasteful.  

At point P, economy is creating 25 TVs and 15 motors. At point N, economy is creating 25 TVs and 20 motors. In this way, development from P to N expands the creation of motors just yet not of TVs.

As should be obvious there is increase of 5 motors while development from P to N.

An economy can deliver any mix on its PPF and beneath its PPF with its accessible assets; there is no compelling reason to get extra assets. Since, P and N lies beneath PPF, economy needn't bother with extra assets to move from P to N. Thus, alternative (d) is additionally off base.  

As expressed above, both P and N lie beneath PPF and along these lines demonstrate wasteful creation. In this way, in the event that economy moves from P to N, at that point it despite everything would not be delivering effectively.  

answer; ///global;

answerindustrial revolution;