The marked price of a watch was 720. A man bought the same fort 550.80 after getting two successive discounts, the 1st being 10%. What was the 2nd discount ? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The marked price of a watch was 720. A man bought the same fort 550.80 after getting two successive discounts, the 1st being 10%. What was the 2nd discount ?

Write Comment

Comments

By: anil on 05 May 2019 01.57 am

it is given that marked price of a watch = Rs 720 Now first discount is = 10% Price after 1st discount = 0.9 × 720 = Rs 648 Now let the 2nd discount be y% So price after 2nd discount is mentioned as = Rs 550.80 648 - $$frac{y}{100}$$ × 648 = 550.80 1- $$frac{y}{100}$$ = 550.80/648
y = 0.15 × 100 =15 % So 2nd discount = 15%

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Which batsman has broken the World record for the fastest 50 and 100 in ODI history, after slamming a half-century in 16 balls and getting to his century in just 31 balls in the 2nd ODI against West Indies?....

QA->If the cash book does not contain discount columns, discount allowed and received will be passed through…………….....

QA->A shopkeeper wants to get 20% gain on an article after allowing a discount of 15%. If the article costs him Rs.153, what price should be mark on the article?....

QA->The Video game collected $550 million in 5 days, which has beaten largest worldwide box-office opening, held by "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," which tallied $394 million over its first five days?....

QA->Which Malaysian player created record by being world No.1 in women’s squash for the successive 106 months?....

MCQ->The marked price of a watch was 720. A man bought the same fort 550.80 after getting two successive discounts, the 1st being 10%. What was the 2nd discount ?....

MCQ->The marked price of a watch was Rs.720. A man bought the same for Rs. 550.80 after getting two successive discounts, the first being 10%. The second discount rate is....

MCQ->A man bought a watch for 10% discount.If he had bought for 20% discount he would have got the watch for ₹ 125 less . The marked price of the watch is....

MCQ-> Read the passage given below and answer the following questionsFirms are said to be in perfect competition when the following conditions occur: (1) many firms produce identical products; (2) many buyers are available to buy the product, and many sellers are available to sell the product; (3) sellers and buyers have all relevant information to make rational decisions about the product being bought and sold; and (4) firms can enter and leave the market without any restrictions—in other words, there is free entry and exit into and out of the market.A perfectly competitive firm is known as a price taker, because the pressure of competing firms forces them to accept the prevailing equilibrium price in the market. If a firm in a perfectly competitive market raises the price of its product by so much as a penny, it will lose all of its sales to competitors. When a wheat grower, wants to know what the going price of wheat is, he or she has to go to the computer or listen to the radio to check. The market price is determined solely by supply and demand in the entire market and not the individual farmer. Also, a perfectly competitive firm must be a very small player in the overall market, so that it can increase or decrease output without noticeably affecting the overall quantity supplied and price in the market.A perfectly competitive market is a hypothetical extreme; however, producers in a number of industries do face many competitor firms selling highly similar goods, in which case they must often act as price takers. Agricultural markets are often used as an example. The same crops grown by different farmers are largely interchangeable. According to the United States Department of Agriculture monthly reports, in 2015, U.S. corn farmers received an average price of $6.00 per bushel and wheat farmers received an average price of $6.00 per bushel. A corn farmer who attempted to sell at $7.00 per bushel, or a wheat grower who attempted to sell for $8.00 per bushel, would not have found any buyers. A perfectly competitive firm will not sell below the equilibrium price either. Why should they when they can sell all they want at the higher price?Source: Principles of Economics, Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11613/latest.According to the passage, why is a perfectly competitive firm a price taker?
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questionsThere is an essential and irreducible ‘duality’ in the normative conceptualization of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her ‘agency’, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her ‘well-being’. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self- interested motivation, in which a person’s agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the person’s agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of one’s agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting. To recognize the distinction between the ‘agency aspect’ and the ‘well-being aspect’ of a person does not require us to take the view that the person’s success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a person’s well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation. The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility - based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well- being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true expect:
....