Part of your company’s accounting database was destroyed when Godzilla attacked the city. You have been able to gather the following data from your files. Reconstruct the remaining information using the available data. All of the raw material purchased during the period was used in production. (Indicate the effect of each variance by selecting "Favorable" or "Unfavorable". Select "None" and enter "0" for no effect (i. e., zero variance). Round "per unit" answer values to 2 decimal places.)

A. Actual quantity used per unit of output = 0.714 pounds

B. Direct Material Quantity Variance = $20,000 (unfavorable)

C. standard quantity used per unit of output = 0.464 pounds

D. Direct-labor rate variance = $35,000 (unfavorable)

E. Standard rate per unit of input = $20

F. Standard quantity per unit of output = 4hours

Explanation:

A variance analysis is a process of comparing a base plan also called standard to the Actual results. The output of a variance analysis indicates if the Actual result is favourable (meaning better than forecasted) or not favourable (falling below plan) or it could be a match (both equal out)

In costing analysis, we look at various elements of the cost breakdown and determine if our actual costs was either favourable, unfavourable or no difference compared to a standard cost predefined.

The following steps will help recover our records:

Step A. Determine Direct Material Quantity Variance.

Direct Material total Variance = Direct Material Quantity Variance + Direct Material Price Variance

Our Direct Material total Variance is $10,000 (favourable)(a)

While our Direct Material Price Variance = Actual Material Cost minus Actual Quantity at standard Material Price = (?) - (10,000 x $8) = -$30,000 (favourable)(b)

We need to determine ?, actual material cost

? = -$30,000 + $80,000 = $50,000

Direct Material Quantity Variance will therefore be (a) minus (b) = -$10,000 minus -$30,000 = $20,000 (unfavourable)

Step B. Determine Actual Material Usage rate.

If actual Cost = $50,000

And price per unit of input = $7,

It implies total unit of material input = $50,000 divided by $7

= 7,143 pounds

If 7,143 units produced 10,000 units of products. The consumption per unit = 7,143 divided by 10,000 = 0.714 pounds

Step C. Determine the standard Usage Rate.

Material Usage Variance = standard quantity specified for actual production minus the actual quantity used at the standard purchase price

if Material Quantity variance is $20,000 (unfavorable)

This implies -$20,000 = ? Minus (7,143 x $8)

We need to determine ?

Standard quantity (?) = -$20,000 + $57,144

= $37,144.

Standard quantity therefore is $37,144 divided by 8 = 4,643 pounds and standard quantity per unit of output = 4,643 / 10,000

=0.464 pounds

Step D. Determine Direct Labour rate Variance

Direct-labor rate variance +

Direct-labor efficiency variance = Total of direct labor variance

$65,000 = ? + $100,000

Direct-labor rate variance = $65,000 minus $100,000

= -$35,000 (unfavorable)

Step E. Determine Standard rate per unit of input

Direct labor price variance = (Standard rate – Actual rate) x Actual Hours

-$35,000 = (SR - $21) x (3.5 x 10,000)

SR = $20.

Step F. Determine Direct labor quantity Variance

Direct labor quantity variance = Standard Rate x (Standard Hours – Actual Hours)

$100,000 = $20 x ( SH - 35,000)

SH = 40,000 hours

Standard rate = 40,000 hrs / 10,000units = $4

explore some of these tourist attractions

the metropolitan museum of art. source: anton_ivanov / shutterstock.

central park. source: gagliardiphotography / shutterstock.

national 9/11 memorial and museum.

empire state building.

statue of liberty.

the museum of modern art (moma)

rockefeller center.

brooklyn bridge.

explanation:

the correct answer is - no.

winnipeg, canada, is not further away from the equator than moscow, russia, in fact moscow is the city that is further away from the equator. moscow is on a latitude of 55.7558° north, while winnipeg is on a latitude of 49.8951° north, thus putting moscow by 5.8607° further away from the equator than winnipeg is.