Tutor profile: Sam M.
Translate the following two sentences: John throws the ball to Jennifer. He throws it to her. Discuss which words we can drop or include without changing the meaning and which ones we must include.
John le tira la pelota a Jennifer. Él se la tira a ella. These sentences involve the use of pronouns, including direct and indirect object pronouns. "Le" is the indirect object pronoun used in the first sentence. Because there is an indirect object (Jennifer) in the sentence, the indirect object pronoun (le) must be included. In the second sentence, it is also include, but changes to "se" because it is followed by a third person direct object pronoun. Ball/pelota is the direct object in the first sentence. "La" is the direct object pronoun that replaces it in the second sentence. In the second sentence, the word "Él" can be omitted, because it is implied by the context and conjugation. "A ella," may also be dropped as redundant, as that information is conveyed by "se," but it is also correct to include it. Le/se must be included in both sentence, as the indirect object pronouns, because there is an indirect object in both sentences, which must be accompanied by those pronouns.
John runs a business making and selling winter coats. He sells the coats in a free, fair, and competitive market. He buys inputs for his coats in similar free, fair, and competitive markets, which include both domestic and imported goods. In both markets information is easily accessible. In September, news comes to consumers that the following October will be unusually cold. Additionally, after negotiations with other countries, a tariff on fabrics, including many of the kinds John uses to make coats, is lifted. John ends up needing to reduce his prices for winter coats slightly. Why is this? Also, based on the information in the question, would we expect that John would sell more, less, or the same amount of jacket as before?
We assume that before the news about the tariffs and cold October came out, the market for winter jackets was in equilibrium. Where the supply and demand curves intersect would give us the equilibrium price and quantity. When the news that this October would be unusually cold, people's preference for winter coats would change: they would want them more. This means that the demand curve would shift outward. So, all things being equal, the equilibrium price and quantity should be higher, as the downward-sloping demand curve would intersect the upward-sloping supply curve at a higher point. The tariff on being lifted on foreign fabric would mean, ceteris paribus, the inputs John and other winter coat sellers use would cost less. This means their input cost would be lower, and so the supply curve would shift outward. All things being the same, this means we would expect the equilibrium quantity to be higher, and the equilibrium price to be lower. To answer the first question, because the change in demand would tend to make the price for coats higher and the change in supply would tend to make the price for coats lower, if John ends up needing to sell his coats at a slightly lower price, then we should conclude that the effect of the change in supply (lowering the price) was slightly greater than the effect of the change in demand (raising the price). To answer the second question, because both the change in demand and the change in supply would tend to make more coats be sold, we would expect John to sell more coats than before the changes.
Power in the US federal government is divided between three branches of government. Their various powers are set forth in the United States Constitution. However, sometimes these branches exercise power in ways that people argue they are not authorized to do. Give an example of one of these instances, and briefly list the arguments why that branch does or does not validly have that power.
The United States Supreme Court, ever since the case of Marbury vs. Madison (1803) has exercised the power of Judicial Review: finding that various acts of both Congress and the several states are Unconstitutional, and therefore cannot be enforced. However, Article III does not explicitly grant the Court this power: it says that Judicial Power shall be vested in a Supreme Court and other inferior courts, which extends, among other things, to cases "arising under this Constitution." Article VI also says that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the United States. Arguments against the exercise of judicial review are that the power to strike down acts of Congress and the States is not explicitly enumerated, and therefore is not present: if the framers wanted that power to exist, they could have said so. Additionally, in the federalist papers, the proposed Judiciary was to be the least dangerous branch. This indicates the framers did not contemplate it having such power. Arguments for the exercise of judicial review are that it logically flows from the language of the Constitution. Article III does not merely say that the courts are to take cases under the laws, treaties, etc. of the United States; it specifically starts with empowering it to hear "all Cases, in Law and Equity," arising under the Constitution--meaning there must be some kind of constitutional claim contemplated, rather than merely statutory and equitable ones. Additionally, if the Judiciary is to interpret the laws of the United States, and the Constitution is specifically described as the "supreme law," then the constitution itself must always ultimately be where the Court looks. It logically follows that the courts could not enforce laws in conflict with the Supreme Law. If it were otherwise, the Court would be forced to approved unconstitutional laws.
needs and Sam will reply soon.