Directions for the following two questions:Mr. David manufactures and sells a single product at a fixed price in a niche market. The selling price of each unit is Rs. 30. On the other hand, the cost, in rupees, of producing x units is $$240 + bx + ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Directions for the following two questions:Mr. David manufactures and sells a single product at a fixed price in a niche market. The selling price of each unit is Rs. 30. On the other hand, the cost, in rupees, of producing x units is $$240 + bx + cx^2$$ , where b and c are some constants. Mr. David noticed that doubling the daily production from 20 to 40 units increases the daily production cost by 66.67%. However, an increase in daily production from 40 to 60 units results in an increase of only 50% in the daily production cost. Assume that demand is unlimited and that Mr. David can sell as much as he can produce. His objective is to maximize the profit.How many units should Mr. David produce daily?

Write Comment

Comments

By: anil on 05 May 2019 02.29 am

Cost of 20 units = 240+20b+400c Cost of 40 units = 240+40b+1600c = 5/3 * (240+20b+400c) => 720+120b+4800c = 1200+100b+2000c

=> 480 = 20b + 2800c => 120 = 5b + 700c

Cost of 60 units = 240+60b+3600c = 3/2 (240+40b+1600c) => 480 + 120b + 7200c = 720 + 120b + 4800c

=> 240 = 2400c => c = 1/10 and b = 10

Let the number of items needed for max profit be k

CP = $$240+10k+k^2/10$$

SP = 30k

Profit = SP - CP = $$30k - 240 - 10k - k^2/10$$ = $$20k - 240 - k^2/10$$ or Profit = $$frac{1}{10} (-k^2 + 200k - 2400)$$ or, Profit = $$frac{1}{10} (-(k^2 - 200k + 2400))$$ or, Profit = $$frac{1}{10} (-(k^2 - 200k + 2400 + 7600 - 7600))$$ or, Profit = $$frac{1}{10} (-(k^2 - 200k + 10000) + 7600)$$ or, Profit = $$frac{1}{10} (-(k - 100)^2 + 7600)$$ To maximise the value of Profit, $$-(k - 100)^2$$ must be 0. So, $$k$$ must be equal to 100.
Hence, option B is the correct answer.

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->A farmer has 50 kg wheat in hand, part of which he sells at 8% profit and the rest at 18% profit. He gains 14% altogether. What is the quantity of wheat sold by him at 18% profit?....

QA->A vendor bought 3 chocolates for 1 rupee. For how much per chocolate should he sell, to gain a profit of 50% ?....

QA->A vendor bought 3 chocolates for 1 rupee. For how much per chocolate should he sell, to gain a profit of 50%?....

QA->An officer having a basic pay of Rs. 21,240, while on tour will be eligible for a daily allowance of rupees:....

QA->Name Pension scheme, launched by the Government of India, under which the pension subscribers will get a fixed minimum monthly pension ranging from 1000 rupees to 5000 rupees at the age of 60 years?....

MCQ-> Directions for the following two questions:Mr. David manufactures and sells a single product at a fixed price in a niche market. The selling price of each unit is Rs. 30. On the other hand, the cost, in rupees, of producing x units is $$240 + bx + cx^2$$ , where b and c are some constants. Mr. David noticed that doubling the daily production from 20 to 40 units increases the daily production cost by 66.67%. However, an increase in daily production from 40 to 60 units results in an increase of only 50% in the daily production cost. Assume that demand is unlimited and that Mr. David can sell as much as he can produce. His objective is to maximize the profit.How many units should Mr. David produce daily?
....

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-> DI
rectI
ons: I
n the followI
ng passage there are blanks, each of whI
ch has been numbered. These numbers are prI
nted below the passage and agaI
nst each, fI
ve words/ phrases are suggested, one of whI
ch fI
ts the blank approprI
ately. FI
nd out the approprI
ate word/ phrase I
n each case.There I
s a consI
derable amount of research about the factors that make a company I
nnovate. So I
s I
t possI
ble to create an envI
ronment (I
) to I
nnovatI
on? ThI
s I
s a partI
cularly pertI
nent (I
I
) for I
ndI
a today. MassI
ve problems I
n health, educatI
on etc (I
I
I
) be solved usI
ng a conventI
onal Approach but (I
V) creatI
ve and I
nnovatI
ve solutI
ons that can ensure radI
cal change and (V). There are several factors I
n I
ndI
a's (VI
). Few countrI
es have the rI
ch dI
versI
ty that I
ndI
a or I
ts large, young populatI
on (VI
I
). WhI
le these (VI
I
I
) I
nnovatI
on polI
cy I
nterventI
ons certaI
n addI
tI
onal steps are also requI
red. These I
nclude (I
X) I
nvestment I
n research and development by (X) the government and the prI
vate sector, easy transfer of technology from the academI
c world etc. To fulfI
ll I
ts promI
se of beI
ng prosperous and to be at the forefront, I
ndI
a must be I
nnovatI
ve.I
....

MCQ-> The second plan to have to examine is that of giving to each person what she deserves. Many people, especially those who are comfortably off, think this is what happens at present: that the industrious and sober and thrifty are never in want, and that poverty is due to idleness, improvidence, drinking, betting, dishonesty, and bad character generally. They can point to the fact that a labour whose character is bad finds it more difficult to get employment than one whose character is good; that a farmer or country gentleman who gambles and bets heavily, and mortgages his land to live wastefully and extravagantly, is soon reduced to poverty; and that a man of business who is lazy and does not attend to it becomes bankrupt. But this proves nothing that you cannot eat your cake and have it too; it does not prove that your share of the cake was a fair one. It shows that certain vices make us rich. People who are hard, grasping, selfish, cruel, and always ready to take advantage of their neighbours, become very rich if they are clever enough not to overreach themselves. On the other hand, people who are generous, public spirited, friendly, and not always thinking of the main chance, stay poor when they are born poor unless they have extraordinary talents. Also as things are today, some are born poor and others are born with silver spoons in their mouths: that is to say, they are divided into rich and poor before they are old enough to have any character at all. The notion that our present system distributes wealth according to merit, even roughly, may be dismissed at once as ridiculous. Everyone can see that it generally has the contrary effect; it makes a few idle people very rich, and a great many hardworking people very poor.On this, intelligent Lady, your first thought may be that if wealth is not distributed according to merit, it ought to be; and that we should at once set to work to alter our laws so that in future the good people shall be rich in proportion to their goodness and the bad people poor in proportion to their badness. There are several objections to this; but the very first one settles the question for good and all. It is, that the proposal is impossible and impractical. How are you going to measure anyone's merit in money? Choose any pair of human beings you like, male or female, and see whether you can decide how much each of them should have on her or his merits. If you live in the country, take the village blacksmith and the village clergyman, or the village washerwoman and the village schoolmistress, to begin with. At present, the clergyman often gets less pay than the blacksmith; it is only in some villages he gets more. But never mind what they get at present: you are trying whether you can set up a new order of things in which each will get what he deserves. You need not fix a sum of money for them: all you have to do is to settle the proportion between them. Is the blacksmith to have as much as the clergyman? Or twice as much as the clergyman? Or half as much as the clergyman? Or how much more or less? It is no use saying that one ought to have more the other less; you must be prepared to say exactly how much more or less in calculable proportion.Well, think it out. The clergyman has had a college education; but that is not any merit on his part: he owns it to his father; so you cannot allow him anything for that. But through it he is able to read the New Testament in Greek; so that he can do something the blacksmith cannot do. On the other hand, the blacksmith can make a horse-shoe, which the parson cannot. How many verses of the Greek Testament are worth one horse-shoe? You have only to ask the silly question to see that nobody can answer it.Since measuring their merits is no use, why not try to measure their faults? Suppose the blacksmith swears a good deal, and gets drunk occasionally! Everybody in the village knows this; but the parson has to keep his faults to himself. His wife knows them; but she will not tell you what they are if she knows that you intend to cut off some of his pay for them. You know that as he is only a mortal human being, he must have some faults; but you cannot find them out. However, suppose he has some faults he is a snob; that he cares more for sport and fashionable society than for religion! Does that make him as bad as the blacksmith, or twice as bad, or twice and quarter as bad, or only half as bad? In other words, if the blacksmith is to have a shilling, is the parson to have six pence, or five pence and one-third, or two shillings? Clearly these are fools' questions: the moment they bring us down from moral generalities to business particulars it becomes plain to every sensible person that no relation can be established between human qualities, good or bad, and sums of money, large or small.It may seem scandalous that a prize-fighter, for hitting another prize-fighter so hard at Wembley that he fell down and could not rise within ten seconds, received the same sum that was paid to the Archbishop of Canterbury for acting as Primate of the Church of England for nine months; but none of those who cry out against the scandal can express any better in money the difference between the two. Not one of the persons who think that the prize-fighter should get less than the Archbishop can say how much less. What the prize- fighter got for his six or seven months' boxing would pay a judge's salary for two years; and we all agree that nothing could be more ridiculous, and that any system of distributing wealth which leads to such absurdities must be wrong. But to suppose that it could be changed by any possible calculation that an ounce of archbishop of three ounces of judge is worth a pound of prize-fighter would be sillier still. You can find out how many candles are worth a pound of butter in the market on any particular day; but when you try to estimate the worth of human souls the utmost you can say is that they are all of equal value before the throne of God:And that will not help you in the least to settle how much money they should have. You must simply give it up, and admit that distributing money according to merit is beyond mortal measurement and judgement.Which of the following is not a vice attributed to the poor by the rich?
....