Discussion Reading about Net Present Value (NPV) for this module, you probably thought of it as a technique used only by corporations. But the technique may also apply to your own purchases. You may have heard a salesperson tell you, “This product pays for itself!†While this is probably rare for most products, sometimes there are future savings from certain products that will offset some of the costs. For example, if you buy a newer, more reliable, and more fuel-efficient car, it may save you on repair bills and gas prices compared with your old car. If you are a coffee connoisseur, buying a 0 espresso machine might save you money compared with constantly buying drinks at your local Starbucks.

Think of a purchase you are planning to make or have recently made. How much did it cost? How much per year do you think you will save from this purchase, and for how many years will you get these savings? Estimate the present value of the savings, and subtract the cost of the product. Note that it is rare that any purchase will “pay for itself†(e.g., have a positive NPV).

But are the savings enough that the product becomes a lot “cheaper†and more worthwhile for you to buy? Response 1 Good morning class, I wished I knew how to use NPV as a teen growing up. This discussion made me think about a time when it seemed like everyone was ordering a Gateway computer. Many commercials about it said, "it practically pays for it self." I wasn't even thinking about the total purchase because all I knew was its only .00 a month. Learning Net present value (NPV) made me want to slap myself.

Understanding it now, NPV is something I could have used to determine the current value of my future purchase from paying for the computer annually or just out right buying it (Jagerson, 2020). Times were a little hard years ago. I will explain if I knew NPV back then, how it would or would not impact my decision to by the computer. The computer I wanted I added different ram and speed to it so the cost of the computer was

Discussionreading About Net Present Value Npv For This Module You P

Discussion Reading about Net Present Value (NPV) for this module, you probably thought of it as a technique used only by corporations. But the technique may also apply to your own purchases. You may have heard a salesperson tell you, “This product pays for itself!†While this is probably rare for most products, sometimes there are future savings from certain products that will offset some of the costs. For example, if you buy a newer, more reliable, and more fuel-efficient car, it may save you on repair bills and gas prices compared with your old car. If you are a coffee connoisseur, buying a $100 espresso machine might save you money compared with constantly buying $4 drinks at your local Starbucks.

Think of a purchase you are planning to make or have recently made. How much did it cost? How much per year do you think you will save from this purchase, and for how many years will you get these savings? Estimate the present value of the savings, and subtract the cost of the product. Note that it is rare that any purchase will “pay for itself†(e.g., have a positive NPV).

But are the savings enough that the product becomes a lot “cheaper†and more worthwhile for you to buy? Response 1 Good morning class, I wished I knew how to use NPV as a teen growing up. This discussion made me think about a time when it seemed like everyone was ordering a Gateway computer. Many commercials about it said, "it practically pays for it self." I wasn't even thinking about the total purchase because all I knew was its only $75.00 a month. Learning Net present value (NPV) made me want to slap myself.

Understanding it now, NPV is something I could have used to determine the current value of my future purchase from paying for the computer annually or just out right buying it (Jagerson, 2020). Times were a little hard years ago. I will explain if I knew NPV back then, how it would or would not impact my decision to by the computer. The computer I wanted I added different ram and speed to it so the cost of the computer was $2,700. All I had to pay was $900 a year which came out to $75 a month.

The interest rate was 9% or close to it. I had a three year contract with Gateway at the time. If I out right purchase the computer, the cost to me would be $2,700 and it is mine. I would $900 for the year as for the payment arrangement. Then $900 for years 1,2, and 3.

The total after those three years came to $3,178.17. I got that by taken the annual payment $900 add NPV open bracket the 9% times year 1,2,3 close bracket. This gave me what I mention earlier the $3,178.17. If I knew I would have paid an extra 478.17 I would have purchase it outright. Cost of computer $ 2,700.00 Payment Plan $ 900.00 Annual interest rate 9% Year Purchase Lease 0 $ 2,700.00 $ 900. $ 900. $ 900. $ 900.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 3,178.17 $ (478.17) Jagerson, J., (2020, September 29).

What Is the Formula for Calculating Net Present Value (NPV)? Retrieved from Response 2 Hi Class. For my Discussion, I decided to take the idea given in the example of getting an espresso machine to save money spent at start bucks. I decided to use a kegerator to drink beer compared to drinking beer at a bar. The current price of a kegerator is around $1,000 on Amazon right now.

A keg should be used within 3 months of tapping it, so for my calculations, I will do 4 kegs for a year. IRR is 5% for the year but broken down to 1.25% per quarter. A few more equations I used to figure out the cost per pint, but it came out to roughly $1 a pint with a keg, vs $6 a pint at a bar. So I would be paying $124 for the keg, but if I was buying 124 pints at a bar it would cost me $744. Each of the quarters was -124 or -744 as it was an expense, not revenue.

The NPV came out to -$480.88 for the year for kegs and -$2236 for the year for drinking at the bar. The keg had an initial $1000 cost while the bar had no expense. Both options ended up costing a lot of money, but the kegerator was $755.32 cheaper of the course of the year. There are some other factors and expenses that could also be taken into account. For example, drinking at a bar would usually include Uber money or gas money for a DD.

One other idea to consider is that having a keg in your house could result in you drinking more than you normally would and actually increase the amount you spend. This equation assumes that you are drinking the same amount at home over the course of the year as you would at a bar. Cheers, Jonathan Cashflow Kegerator Bar Drinks CF CF CF CF CF NPV -$480.88 -$2,236. NPV -$1,480.88 -$2,236.20 saving= -$755.32 Reference: Ihatemathdotcom. (2012, June 25). How to calculate NPV and IRR (Net Present Value and Internal Rate Return) EXCEL.

Retrieved from less Rubic_Print_Format Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points NRS-429VN NRS-429VN-OL191 CLC - Health Promotion and Community Resource Teaching Project 160.0 Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less than Satisfactory (75.00%) Satisfactory (79.00%) Good (89.00%) Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned Content 100.0% Approved Topic, Associated Population and Health Disparity 10.0% Topic and associated population selected is not approved; topic and associated population are not relevant to the scope of the assignment. Topic and associated population are omitted. Approved topic and associated population are partially presented. It is unclear how the topic adversely affects the selected population.

Health disparities are partially described, or are not relevant to selected population. There are significant inaccuracies. Approved topic and associated population are summarized. A general correlation of how the topic adversely affects the selected population is presented. Relevant health disparities are summarized.

There are some inaccuracies. More evidence or rationale is needed for support. Approved topic and associated population are described. A correlation of how the topic adversely affects the selected population is established and discussed. Relevant health disparities are discussed.

There are minor inaccuracies. Some evidence or rationale is needed for support. Approved topic and associated population are thoroughly described. A strong correlation of how the topic adversely affects the selected population is established and discussed in detail. Relevant health disparities are clearly presented and discussed.

Strong evidence and compelling rationale is offered for support. Evidence-Based Approaches to Optimize Health for Population 10.0% Evidence-based approaches to optimize health for this population are not presented. Evidence-based approaches to optimize health for this population are partially presented; some approaches presented are not evidence-based, or are not relevant for this population. Explanation of how these approaches minimize health disparity is incomplete, or are not relevant for the affected population. There are significant inaccuracies.

Evidence-based approaches to optimize health for this population are summarized; it is unclear how some approaches presented are relevant for this population. A general explanation of how these approaches minimize health disparity is presented. There are some inaccuracies. More evidence or rationale is needed for support. Evidence-based approaches to optimize health for this population are discussed.

Explanation of how these approaches minimize health disparity is presented. Some evidence or rationale is needed for support. Evidence-based approaches to optimize health for this population are discussed, and approaches are accurately represented and highly relevant to the population. Explanation of how these approaches minimize health disparity is well-developed. Strong evidence and rationale are provided throughout.

An understanding of the importance of evidence-based approaches in the optimization of health for an at-risk population is demonstrated. Proposal for Health Education for Family-Centered Health Promotion 10.0% A proposal for health education for a family-centered health promotion to address the issue for the target population is omitted. The proposal is not supported by evidence-based practice. A proposal for health education for a family-centered health promotion to address the issue for the target population is partially presented. The proposal is not entirely relevant to the target population.

The proposal requires more support relevant to evidence-based practice. There are significant inaccuracies. A proposal for health education for a family-centered health promotion to address the issue for the target population is presented. It is generally supported by evidence-based practice; there are some inaccuracies, or some areas need more support using evidence-based practice. Overall, the proposal is relevant to the target population.

A proposal for health education for a family-centered health promotion to address the issue for the target population is presented. It is supported by evidence-based practice and relevant to the target population. There are minor inaccuracies. A well-developed proposal for health education for a family-centered health promotion to address the issue for the target population is presented. It is strongly supported by evidence-based practice and highly relevant to the target population.

The ability to apply evidence-based practice to health education for a target population is clearly demonstrated. Resources and Organizations for Proposed Education Plan 5.0% Resources and organizations to support the proposed education plan are omitted. One health-related organization for the selected topic is presented. The profile is incomplete, or it is unclear how the organization is relevant to the focus topic. Two resources (national or local) are presented.

It is unclear how the resources are supposed to be used, or how the resources are relevant to the focus topic. A general profile for a health-related organization relevant to the selected topic is summarized. Two relevant resources (national or local) are presented, and there is a general explanation for how the resources are supposed to be used by the patient or provider. A general profile for a health-related organization relevant to the selected topic is presented. Two relevant resources (national or local) are presented, and there is an explanation for how the resources are supposed to be used by the patient or provider.

A general profile for a health-related organization relevant to the selected topic is well presented. Two relevant resources (national or local) are presented, and there is a clear explanation for how the resources are supposed to be used by the patient or provider. Interdisciplinary Health Professional Involvement 5.0% Interdisciplinary health professionals important to the health promotion are not included. At least one significant interdisciplinary health professional is presented. It is unclear how the professional important to the health promotion, and what the role of the professional would be.

Support for the suggested member is needed. Some significant interdisciplinary health professionals are presented. A summary of their role and importance to the health promotion is provided. Some support for the suggested members is needed. Key interdisciplinary health professionals are presented A discussion of their role and importance to the health promotion is provided.

All significant interdisciplinary health professionals are presented. A clear discussion of their role and importance to the health promotion is provided. Presentation of Content 40.0% The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear.

The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information. The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization or in their relationships to each other. The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive information from reliable sources.

The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea. Layout 5.0% The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability.

The text is extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident. The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text. The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately.

Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability. The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text. The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point.

The background and colors enhance the readability of the text. Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.) 5.0% Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately. Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present.

The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately. Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part. The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly. The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope. Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. Writer is clearly in control of standard, written, academic English. Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Sources are not documented.

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Total Weightage 100%

,700. All I had to pay was 0 a year which came out to a month.

The interest rate was 9% or close to it. I had a three year contract with Gateway at the time. If I out right purchase the computer, the cost to me would be

Discussionreading About Net Present Value Npv For This Module You P

Discussion Reading about Net Present Value (NPV) for this module, you probably thought of it as a technique used only by corporations. But the technique may also apply to your own purchases. You may have heard a salesperson tell you, “This product pays for itself!†While this is probably rare for most products, sometimes there are future savings from certain products that will offset some of the costs. For example, if you buy a newer, more reliable, and more fuel-efficient car, it may save you on repair bills and gas prices compared with your old car. If you are a coffee connoisseur, buying a $100 espresso machine might save you money compared with constantly buying $4 drinks at your local Starbucks.

Think of a purchase you are planning to make or have recently made. How much did it cost? How much per year do you think you will save from this purchase, and for how many years will you get these savings? Estimate the present value of the savings, and subtract the cost of the product. Note that it is rare that any purchase will “pay for itself†(e.g., have a positive NPV).

But are the savings enough that the product becomes a lot “cheaper†and more worthwhile for you to buy? Response 1 Good morning class, I wished I knew how to use NPV as a teen growing up. This discussion made me think about a time when it seemed like everyone was ordering a Gateway computer. Many commercials about it said, "it practically pays for it self." I wasn't even thinking about the total purchase because all I knew was its only $75.00 a month. Learning Net present value (NPV) made me want to slap myself.

Understanding it now, NPV is something I could have used to determine the current value of my future purchase from paying for the computer annually or just out right buying it (Jagerson, 2020). Times were a little hard years ago. I will explain if I knew NPV back then, how it would or would not impact my decision to by the computer. The computer I wanted I added different ram and speed to it so the cost of the computer was $2,700. All I had to pay was $900 a year which came out to $75 a month.

The interest rate was 9% or close to it. I had a three year contract with Gateway at the time. If I out right purchase the computer, the cost to me would be $2,700 and it is mine. I would $900 for the year as for the payment arrangement. Then $900 for years 1,2, and 3.

The total after those three years came to $3,178.17. I got that by taken the annual payment $900 add NPV open bracket the 9% times year 1,2,3 close bracket. This gave me what I mention earlier the $3,178.17. If I knew I would have paid an extra 478.17 I would have purchase it outright. Cost of computer $ 2,700.00 Payment Plan $ 900.00 Annual interest rate 9% Year Purchase Lease 0 $ 2,700.00 $ 900. $ 900. $ 900. $ 900.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 3,178.17 $ (478.17) Jagerson, J., (2020, September 29).

What Is the Formula for Calculating Net Present Value (NPV)? Retrieved from Response 2 Hi Class. For my Discussion, I decided to take the idea given in the example of getting an espresso machine to save money spent at start bucks. I decided to use a kegerator to drink beer compared to drinking beer at a bar. The current price of a kegerator is around $1,000 on Amazon right now.

A keg should be used within 3 months of tapping it, so for my calculations, I will do 4 kegs for a year. IRR is 5% for the year but broken down to 1.25% per quarter. A few more equations I used to figure out the cost per pint, but it came out to roughly $1 a pint with a keg, vs $6 a pint at a bar. So I would be paying $124 for the keg, but if I was buying 124 pints at a bar it would cost me $744. Each of the quarters was -124 or -744 as it was an expense, not revenue.

The NPV came out to -$480.88 for the year for kegs and -$2236 for the year for drinking at the bar. The keg had an initial $1000 cost while the bar had no expense. Both options ended up costing a lot of money, but the kegerator was $755.32 cheaper of the course of the year. There are some other factors and expenses that could also be taken into account. For example, drinking at a bar would usually include Uber money or gas money for a DD.

One other idea to consider is that having a keg in your house could result in you drinking more than you normally would and actually increase the amount you spend. This equation assumes that you are drinking the same amount at home over the course of the year as you would at a bar. Cheers, Jonathan Cashflow Kegerator Bar Drinks CF CF CF CF CF NPV -$480.88 -$2,236. NPV -$1,480.88 -$2,236.20 saving= -$755.32 Reference: Ihatemathdotcom. (2012, June 25). How to calculate NPV and IRR (Net Present Value and Internal Rate Return) EXCEL.

Retrieved from less Rubic_Print_Format Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points NRS-429VN NRS-429VN-OL191 CLC - Health Promotion and Community Resource Teaching Project 160.0 Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less than Satisfactory (75.00%) Satisfactory (79.00%) Good (89.00%) Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned Content 100.0% Approved Topic, Associated Population and Health Disparity 10.0% Topic and associated population selected is not approved; topic and associated population are not relevant to the scope of the assignment. Topic and associated population are omitted. Approved topic and associated population are partially presented. It is unclear how the topic adversely affects the selected population.

Health disparities are partially described, or are not relevant to selected population. There are significant inaccuracies. Approved topic and associated population are summarized. A general correlation of how the topic adversely affects the selected population is presented. Relevant health disparities are summarized.

There are some inaccuracies. More evidence or rationale is needed for support. Approved topic and associated population are described. A correlation of how the topic adversely affects the selected population is established and discussed. Relevant health disparities are discussed.

There are minor inaccuracies. Some evidence or rationale is needed for support. Approved topic and associated population are thoroughly described. A strong correlation of how the topic adversely affects the selected population is established and discussed in detail. Relevant health disparities are clearly presented and discussed.

Strong evidence and compelling rationale is offered for support. Evidence-Based Approaches to Optimize Health for Population 10.0% Evidence-based approaches to optimize health for this population are not presented. Evidence-based approaches to optimize health for this population are partially presented; some approaches presented are not evidence-based, or are not relevant for this population. Explanation of how these approaches minimize health disparity is incomplete, or are not relevant for the affected population. There are significant inaccuracies.

Evidence-based approaches to optimize health for this population are summarized; it is unclear how some approaches presented are relevant for this population. A general explanation of how these approaches minimize health disparity is presented. There are some inaccuracies. More evidence or rationale is needed for support. Evidence-based approaches to optimize health for this population are discussed.

Explanation of how these approaches minimize health disparity is presented. Some evidence or rationale is needed for support. Evidence-based approaches to optimize health for this population are discussed, and approaches are accurately represented and highly relevant to the population. Explanation of how these approaches minimize health disparity is well-developed. Strong evidence and rationale are provided throughout.

An understanding of the importance of evidence-based approaches in the optimization of health for an at-risk population is demonstrated. Proposal for Health Education for Family-Centered Health Promotion 10.0% A proposal for health education for a family-centered health promotion to address the issue for the target population is omitted. The proposal is not supported by evidence-based practice. A proposal for health education for a family-centered health promotion to address the issue for the target population is partially presented. The proposal is not entirely relevant to the target population.

The proposal requires more support relevant to evidence-based practice. There are significant inaccuracies. A proposal for health education for a family-centered health promotion to address the issue for the target population is presented. It is generally supported by evidence-based practice; there are some inaccuracies, or some areas need more support using evidence-based practice. Overall, the proposal is relevant to the target population.

A proposal for health education for a family-centered health promotion to address the issue for the target population is presented. It is supported by evidence-based practice and relevant to the target population. There are minor inaccuracies. A well-developed proposal for health education for a family-centered health promotion to address the issue for the target population is presented. It is strongly supported by evidence-based practice and highly relevant to the target population.

The ability to apply evidence-based practice to health education for a target population is clearly demonstrated. Resources and Organizations for Proposed Education Plan 5.0% Resources and organizations to support the proposed education plan are omitted. One health-related organization for the selected topic is presented. The profile is incomplete, or it is unclear how the organization is relevant to the focus topic. Two resources (national or local) are presented.

It is unclear how the resources are supposed to be used, or how the resources are relevant to the focus topic. A general profile for a health-related organization relevant to the selected topic is summarized. Two relevant resources (national or local) are presented, and there is a general explanation for how the resources are supposed to be used by the patient or provider. A general profile for a health-related organization relevant to the selected topic is presented. Two relevant resources (national or local) are presented, and there is an explanation for how the resources are supposed to be used by the patient or provider.

A general profile for a health-related organization relevant to the selected topic is well presented. Two relevant resources (national or local) are presented, and there is a clear explanation for how the resources are supposed to be used by the patient or provider. Interdisciplinary Health Professional Involvement 5.0% Interdisciplinary health professionals important to the health promotion are not included. At least one significant interdisciplinary health professional is presented. It is unclear how the professional important to the health promotion, and what the role of the professional would be.

Support for the suggested member is needed. Some significant interdisciplinary health professionals are presented. A summary of their role and importance to the health promotion is provided. Some support for the suggested members is needed. Key interdisciplinary health professionals are presented A discussion of their role and importance to the health promotion is provided.

All significant interdisciplinary health professionals are presented. A clear discussion of their role and importance to the health promotion is provided. Presentation of Content 40.0% The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear.

The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information. The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization or in their relationships to each other. The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive information from reliable sources.

The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea. Layout 5.0% The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability.

The text is extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident. The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text. The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately.

Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability. The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text. The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point.

The background and colors enhance the readability of the text. Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.) 5.0% Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately. Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present.

The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately. Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part. The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly. The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope. Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. Writer is clearly in control of standard, written, academic English. Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Sources are not documented.

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Total Weightage 100%

,700 and it is mine. I would 0 for the year as for the payment arrangement. Then 0 for years 1,2, and 3.

The total after those three years came to