Complete the sentence. A production quota is because at the quantity produced . A. inefficient; marginal social benefit is less than marginal social cost B. efficient; marginal social benefit equals marginal social cost C. inefficient; marginal social benefit exceeds marginal social cost D. efficient; the price received by the farmers maximizes their profit

The correct answer is option "D". Efficient; price received by farmers maximizes their profit.

Explanation: Production quota of a good in economics is a regulations or restrictions mostly made by government or the market leaders to regulate the price of a particular good, to ensure that the producer is not in shortage nor making too much of surplus profit.

The price of a particular agricultural good can be set high to encourage farmers to produce at a given quantity in order to maximize their profit or when the government notices that the price the producer or farmer sells a particular good is too much for the people to bear they can also decide to regulate the price by lowering the price to a particular price level, in both cases the producer is never at loss.

The correct answer is C. inefficient; marginal social benefit exceeds marginal social cost.

Explanation:

The objective of these quotas determined by the state entity is to increase the price that producers receive by reducing the supply of goods, this also reduces the marginal cost of producing quotas. The production quota is ineffective because it leads to insufficient production, in the quantity established by the quota, the marginal profit is equal to the market price, and the marginal cost is less than the market price, therefore, the marginal profit exceeds marginal costs.

i think its d, but grammarly says none

explanation:

formal arguments

in written, formal arguments, the best way to build credibility with readers is to provide them with evidence. no matter what your argument might be and which side you agree with, citing strong evidence to back up your claim leaves the opposition with little to argue.

emotional appeal is often used in oral arguments. written arguments, however, rely on four main types of evidence. as you read further, you will see that some types are more credible than others and "hold more water" so to speak.

statistical evidence

the strongest type of evidence in formal writing is statistical evidence. this ranges from true, hard data presented as a percentage or number, to survey-type data. for example, statistical evidence could be:

4 out of 5 experts claim

85% of women in the united

7 members were present

statistical evidence can be proven as fact. you can actually go out and find hard information to prove your particular claim.

testimonial evidence

the use of celebrities as credibility evidence can be considered testimonial in nature. many people look up to celebrities as role models in their lives. good or bad, when a person chooses a life-path that takes them into public light, there will be many others out there who want to emulate the celebrity. these celebrity endorsements provide the second-strongest type of evidence found in formal arguments.

testimonial evidence can also be collected from experts and authorities in a given field. doctors, dentists, lawyers often provide expert testimonials. their authority is not often questions. they are expected to "know their stuff."

anecdotal evidence

when storytelling is involved as evidence, anecdotal evidence is being used. due to its less objective nature, anecdotal evidence is not extremely strong. when coupled with statistical or testimonial evidence, anecdotal evidence can be highly effective in determining credibility or proof.

storytelling, although based on fact, can include quite a bit of opinion, thus making it less objective. usually, eyewitnesses are used as providers of anecdotal evidence. they saw or experienced the phenomenon at hand are telling their version or side of the story.

analogical evidence

when information is scarce about something and little is known, analogical evidence is often used in a formal argument to increase credibility of the proof. if the phenomenon in question is new and little is known about it, analogical evidence that pulls in known factors about a similar phenomenon to show parallels can be an effective way to provide proof.

due to limited knowledge about the phenomenon, in this situation, analogical evidence can be regarded as the weakest type of evidence used in formal arguments. one can only imagine and hope that the comparison-phenomenon is close enough that the results can be applied to the new phenomenon.

in the

all that really matters in a formal argument is whether or not the writer has credible evidence to back up what they want to say or what they are thinking. so often, we hear people say, "prove it! " to one another.

one last little formal arguments not only provide credible evidence to support claims, don't forget that acknowledgment of the opposing point of view in an argument also strengthens the entire product.