Graphical models enable a manager to visualize the objective function (profit line), constraints, and possible solutions to a given problem, and to make more informed decisions based on that information. In this task you will be using your knowledge of graphical models, the given scenario, and the attached “QAT1 Task 2 Spreadsheet” to complete the assessment.
Company A produces and sells a popular pet food product packaged under two brand names, with formulas that contain different proportions of the same ingredients. Company A made this decision so that their national branded product would be differentiated from the private label product. Some product is sold under the company’s nationally advertised brand (Brand Y), while the re-proportioned formula is packaged under a private label (Brand X) and is sold to chain stores. Because of volume discounts and other stipulations in the sales agreements, the contribution to profit from the Brand Y product sold to distributors under the company’s national brand is only $12.50 per case compared to $100 per case for private label product Brand X. There are four ingredients involved in the two products. The recipes specifying the use of each ingredient in the two product brands are given in the “QAT1 Task 2 Spreadsheet”. Also note that an ingredient may either be in limited supply or may have government regulations requiring a minimum or maximum amount.
A. Identify the objective function.
1. Determine the total profit to be made if the company produces a combination of cases of Brand X and Brand Y that lies on the black-dashed objective function line (profit line), as shown on the graph in the attached “QAT1 Task 2 Spreadsheet.”
B. Write the four constraints that are described in the scenario given in the attached “QAT1 Task 2 Spreadsheet.”
1. Describe why each of the four written constraints from part B is a minimum or a maximum constraint.
C. Analyze the optimum production yielding the greatest amount of profit by doing the following:
1. Determine the number of cases of Brand X that should be produced, showing all of your work.
2. Determine the number of cases of Brand Y that should be produced, showing all of your work.
3. Discuss how the feasible region was used to arrive at your calculations for parts C1 and C2.
4. Determine the total profit that would be generated by the production levels determined in parts C1 and C2, showing all of your work.
1.0 INTRODUCTION The announcement which I need to examine “Is the outright division of law and ethical quality proposed by lawful positivism a deterrent to the acknowledgment of the idea of human rights?” for us to assess this announcement first we need to comprehend lawful positivism and the underlying foundations of human rights. At that point I would examine why law and profound quality can’t be seperated and if seperated its antagonistic effects and how human rights and positive law ought to be amalgamated. 2.0 LEGAL POSITIVISM Lawful positivism is an attitude in legalism that the presence and substance of law ought to rely upon social realities and not on merits. It is the view that profound quality has no weight in the law that is made and set up as the law of the state. It ought to be taken after and it is incomparable anyway corrupt or unreasonable that bit of law or enactment is. There are a few lawful scholars who built up the possibility of legitimate positivism, among them the most unmistakable figures are Jeremy Bentham, John Austin and HLA Hart. What we should remember is that even positivists are separated into 2, comprehensive and restrictive positivism. Comprehensive positivists are individuals who trust that ethical imperatives can be fused into law as indicated by a general public’s conviction. Indeed, even HLA Hart was a comprehensive (delicate) positivist who trust that “the control of acknowledgment may fuse as criteria of lawful legitimacy congruity with moral standards or substantive qualities … “ Then again are the selective positivists who trust that a lawful framework can’t incorporate good restrictions on lawful legitimacy. They trust in the total matchless quality of the positive law. One of conspicuous selective (hard) positivists was Joseph Raz who was really an understudy of HLA Hart. 3.0 NATURAL LAW AND DERIVATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS FROM NATURAL LAW Normal law is the direct inverse of positive law, and is what is characterized as god’s law or perfect law, which has no provisos as in synthetic law. It is law which depends on ethical quality as opposed to legitimateness trusting that any man made law which isn’t ethically right isn’t law in any way. Naturalists contend that positive law is continually advancing to accomplish the edge of characteristic law. Some noticeable figures who contended for the matchless quality of common law and profound quality were St. Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Hobbes. The establishment of normal law is religious convictions and good rights and wrongs as appeared all through history. The idea of human rights, I accept, is gotten from common rights, which thusly is gotten from religious and good convictions. So the worldwide bill of human rights we see today really is an offspring of normal law itself. John locke, a supporter of Thomas Hobbes, and an eminent thinker, while expounding on regular rights in Two Treatises Of Government, has said that “men are by nature free and equivalent against claims that God had made all individuals normally subject to a ruler. He contended that individuals have rights, for example, the privilege to life, freedom, and property that have an establishment autonomous of the laws of a specific culture”  This is precisely what is settled in the International Bill of Human rights today. So it is intelligently doubtful, and it is my conviction that Human rights is really regular law/common rights itself, in another shape, endeavoring to force matchless quality over positive law simply like in the periods passed. Along these lines if regular law isn’t acknowledged similar to a piece of positive law, human rights can never be genuinely acknowledged. 4.0 WHY LAW AND MORALITY CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE SEPERATED The discussion for the partition of good and legitimate rights is a warmed discussion as yet progressing. A standout amongst the most amazing articulations in regards to this point was made between HLA Hart and Lon L. Fuller, the last expressing that lawful and good rights can never be isolated. Hart contended that there ought to be a strict division of law and profound quality, he denied that there are all around shared fundamental good principles of legitimate legitimacy and he additionally denied that an individual perceives law as great law in light of ethical quality and that people may do it in view of absolutely non moral considerations. Fuller contended that law and ethical quality can’t be isolated in light of the fact that they are normally associated. He found the association amongst law and ethical quality in the specific heart of positivism, the legislators. He gave 8 different ways to neglect to make a law expressing that these tenets are fundamental as they make an “internal profound quality of law”.  In his Journal article Positivism and the Inseparability of Law and Morals, Leslie Green has contended that law and ethics in certainty can’t be isolated and rather than the mixed up distinctness test he had brought into light the hidden questionability test.  Keeping the thinkers contentions aside we can take a situation to consider what might happen if law and profound quality were entirely isolated. On the off chance that the law making body, the parliament, on the off chance that they put stock in this strict detachment and on the off chance that they had no feeling of good qualities in their general public while making law, and on the off chance that they passed an enactment which is contradictory with the general public convictions, it would cause devastation. The administration that passes such a bill is bound to fall as demonstrated by history with Margaret Thatcher’s death in the wake of passing the survey impose. For instance on the off chance that they passed a bill permitting gay marriage in an entirely Wahhabi Muslim society, it will undoubtedly be met with scorn and may be resented by the general public. 5.0 AMALGAMATING HUMAN RIGHTS AND POSITIVE LAW One can state that the idea of human rights have just been consolidated with positive law of UK after the institution of Human Rights Act of 1998. Its dug in nature and per s.3 of the Act all enactment passed, must be perfect with Individual human rights. And if any enactment is contrary with human rights courts can announce it contradictory under s4 of the HRA 1998 and encourage the parliament to make the essential rectifications. This intensity of the HRA 1998 can be appeared in the ongoing instance of R (Royal College of Nursing) v SSHD (2010) where Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act (SVGA) 2006 was contrary with Art 6 as the recorded individual was denied the privilege to make portrayals ahead of time of being recorded. The Section 67(2) and (6) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 appeared to correct this Schedule therefore. 6.0 POSITIVE LAW: SUPREME IN UK As we probably am aware UK is a dualist nation meaning it doesn’t regard to global laws or EU laws. It needs its residential laws to be instituted by the parliament for them to be lawfully enforceable. This outcomes in an incomparable parliament which can twist law at impulse (as can be appeared in the deferral establishing HRA 1998). Indeed, even the power vested in courts by HRA 1998 as revelation of incongruence is a toothless cure when managing an out of line assembly. Since these announcements are not definitive, they are simply influential, so the parliament is has a decision to keep the enactment as it is regardless of presentation of incongruence. Something else which demonstrates the matchless quality of positive law in UK, is the Prime priests indicating on the revoking of the HRA 1998 without a legitimate reinforcement plan.  7.0 ACCEPTING HUMAN RIGHTS AS MORAL CLAIMS OR POSITIVE LAW While breaking down the given explanation I happened upon two manners by which it could be tended to and as indicated by that I could give my conclusion on the legitimacy of the announcement. Those two different ways are, that human rights could be acknowledged as good cases as the announcement proposes and after that we can assess how the division of profound quality and law could influence the acknowledgment of human rights. The second way is that we could assert that human rights is not any more good cases yet positive law, and after that perceive how the partition of law and profound quality influences it. 7.1 ACCEPTING HUMAN RIGHTS AS MORAL CLAIMS On the off chance that Human rights are moral cases as the announcement recommends then it is fundamental not to have any partition amongst law and ethical quality. On the off chance that law and profound quality is entirely isolated as the perfect positivist suggests then human rights won’t have the amazingness and power it needs to all around secure the privileges of people. They have to beat any type of positive law which conflicts with it. Human rights are typically acknowledged as having their premise in ethical quality since characteristic rights was gotten from religious convictions. I, trust that, both human rights and value are offspring of common law, and for with the goal for them to be fruitful, they have to consolidated with positive law yet be ground-breaking enough to conquer shackles of positive law. In spite of the fact that the matchless quality of value isn’t questioned, the amazingness of human rights is.>