cdfsewbsof Ron got 260 shares of face value rs 10 each . he had to pay amount of rs 99590.4 to complete the transaction including 0.8% brokerage. find the market price of each share

Answer:

= 3×3×3×3×3×3

2×2×11×11×11×11

= 242/27

Answer:

Petroleum was formed from organisms living in the sea. As the organisms died, their bodies settled at the bottom of the sea and got covered with layers of sand and clay. Over millions of years, absence of air, high temperature and high pressure transformed the dead organisms into petroleum and natural gas.

mark as brainliest please please please

[tex]\huge\mathcal{\fbox{\fbox\red{Hello}}}[/tex]

[tex]\large\underline{\mathbb{J0IN-F0R-FUN}:}[/tex]

[tex]\pink{ \rule{0pt}{100000pt}}[/tex]

Answer:

India is an agricultural country. Agriculture is “only” ~16 % of GDP but the largest sector for employment. Officially farmers are only a few hundred million, but adding family members who help or occasionally farm, as also wage labourers, the number of farm workers is likely to be closer to half a billion people. But how many people would India need farming if it were as labour efficient as the US for growing crops? I am not suggesting it is possible, or even desirable (large, mechanised farms with massive chemical and water inputs) but as a thought exercise? Just four million people.

The US is extreme; with less than 2% of its population growing food sufficient for almost 2 billion people, but much of it is fed to animals. The US also focuses on many crops suitable for mechanisation, but even using metrics from many East Asian countries, with about 10% of the population in agriculture - as opposed to half the workforce for India - that is hundreds of millions of people who could shift to alternative options.Jobs aside, India needs to shift from basic farming to more efficient, sustainable, and productive farming. Unfortunately, today’s agriculture policies fail to recognise how crop choices, input costs, and the supply chain are intertwined, perpetuating marginal farming. Moreover, growing more food isn’t the solution to providing employment. There is enough food, especially considering calories as opposed to micronutrients. Exports are possible but require extensive value add, and it is not clear how much of this would benefit the farmer as opposed to the processor or trader. Fundamentally, India must figure out a way to provide meaningful employment to hundreds of millions of people outside agriculture. Failing to do so means not just a failure of human development, it represents a political if not social powder keg – underemployed and disaffected youth are a national security threat, becoming fodder for radicalisation, a life of crime, or worse.

yes, you're right that's correct