A pizzeria produces 3,000 pizzas during its first week of operation using 10 drums of marinara sauce, 150 hours of labor, and 50 therms of energy. Pizzas sell for $15 each, and workers are paid $18 per hour. The marinara sauce costs $200 per drum, and the energy cost is $7 per therm. During its second week of operation, it produces 2,900 pizzas using only 140 hours of labor. All costs and prices are constant from the first to second week. What has been the change in their labor productivity?Single choice
A
Productivity has increased by 5.3%.
B
Productivity has decreased by 5.3%.
C
Productivity has increased by 3.6%.
D
Productivity has decreased by 3.6%.

Question

A pizzeria produces 3,000 pizzas during its first week of operation using 10 drums of marinara sauce, 150 hours of labor, and 50 therms of energy. Pizzas sell for $15 each, and workers are paid $18 per hour. The marinara sauce costs $200 per drum, and the energy cost is $7 per therm. During its second week of operation, it produces 2,900 pizzas using only 140 hours of labor. All costs and prices are constant from the first to second week. What has been the change in their labor productivity?Single choice

A

Productivity has increased by 5.3%.

B

Productivity has decreased by 5.3%.

C

Productivity has increased by 3.6%.

D

Productivity has decreased by 3.6%.

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question asks for the change in labor productivity from Week 1 to Week 2, where labor productivity is defined as pizzas produced per hour of labor.
First, compute Week 1 productivity: 3,000 pizzas produced using 150 hours of labor. 3,000 / 150 = 20 pizzas per hour.
Next, compute Week 2 productivity: 2,900 pizzas produced using 140 hours of labor. 2,900 / 140 ≈ 20.7143 pizzas per hour.
Now determine the change in productivity: (Week 2 productivity − Week 1 productivity) / Week 1 productivity = (20.7143 − 20) / 20 ≈ 0.7143 / 20 ≈ 0.035714, which is about 3.57%.
With that in mind, evaluate each option:
- Option A: Productivity has increased by 5.3%. This overstates the improvement; the calculated increase is about 3.57%, not 5.3%, so this is incorrect.
- Option B: Productivity has decreased by 5.3%. The productivity actually rose, not fell, and the magnitude is not 5.3%, so this is incorrect.
- Option C: Productivity has increased by 3.6%. This matches the approximate 3.57% increase derived from the numbers, so this is the correct magnitude and direction.
- Option D: Productivity has decreased by 3.6%. This contradicts the actual increase we computed, since Week 2 productivity is higher, not lower, making this option incorrect.
Note that the key idea is comparing output per hour between the two weeks; any option that misstates the direction (increase vs. decrease) or the percent magnitude is inaccurate.

Similar Questions

Which of the following interpretation to information presented in the figure below- ‘Labour Productivity measured by average annual working hours and GDP per capita’ is the most accurate one?

How would you describe unit labor requirement? Select one – the most appropriate answer.

If average labour productivity decreases, real GDP per person:

If 12 Swiss farmers generate CHF 600,000 in real GDP, the output per worker would be

If 12 Swiss farmers generate CHF 600,000 in real GDP, the output per worker would be

If 12 Swiss farmers generate CHF 600,000 in real GDP, the output per worker would be

An increase in technology that enhances labor productivity will likely result in:

If real GDP is $1,200 billion, the population is 60 million, and aggregate hours are 80 billion, labor productivity is

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler