[amp_mcq option1=”sell at a loss, even if commodity is non-perishable” option2=”the seller would incur high expenditure on advertisement” option3=”would seek subsidies from the government” option4=”would convert the supplies back to stock and wait for price to rise” correct=”option4″]<\/p>\n
The correct answer is D.<\/p>\n
If the price does not cover even the variable cost, the seller would convert the supplies back to stock and wait for price to rise. This is because the seller would be incurring a loss if they were to sell the goods at the current price. By converting the supplies back to stock, the seller can avoid this loss and wait for the price to rise before selling the goods.<\/p>\n
Option A is incorrect because the seller would not want to sell at a loss, even if the commodity is non-perishable. Selling at a loss would only increase the seller’s losses.<\/p>\n
Option B is incorrect because the seller would not want to incur high expenditure on advertisement. Advertisement would only increase the seller’s costs, which would make the situation even worse.<\/p>\n
Option C is incorrect because the seller would not be able to get subsidies from the government. The government would not be willing to subsidize a company that is selling at a loss.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[amp_mcq option1=”sell at a loss, even if commodity is non-perishable” option2=”the seller would incur high expenditure on advertisement” option3=”would seek subsidies from the government” option4=”would convert the supplies back to stock and wait for price to rise” correct=”option4″]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"\n