Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing free essay sample

A week later, the father’s patience is broken and he dumps a bowl of cornflakes over Fudges head, leading to Fudges new favorite phrase, Eat it or wear it! . While being watched by Sheila Tubman on the playground in Central Park, Fudge jumps off the jungle gym, thinking he can fly, crashing to the ground and swallowing his top two front teeth in the process, and Peter gives Fudge a new nickname, Fang, which is not amusing to his mother. Peter is asked by her to supervise Fudges third birthday party, which ends up with some amusing and disastrous moments. Then his mother takes the kids to some errands. First she takes Fudge to the dentist to check on how his teeth are progressing again after the accident. Then Fudge throws a temper tantrum in a shoe store, since he wants to buy loafers like Peter is getting. We will write a custom essay sample on Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page His mother is fed up when Fudge smears his mashed potatoes on the wall of a restaurant and dumps a plate of peas over his head. In January, Peter, Jimmy and Sheila are grouped for a class project which they are constantly arguing over, but Peter then finds out Fudge has made the situation more difficult by scribbling on the poster part of their project work. Then Peter finds out Fudge has been spanked by his mother, who finds out about what Fudge did to the poster. Then when the project is finally finished, Fudge cuts off his hair (as he thinks of himself as a barber, and the next day Peter gets a lock for his door. Two months later his mom finds out about her sisters first baby, so she visits them in Boston. Peters dad takes him and Fudge into work where they are trying to get Fudge to star in an advertisement on television. Everything goes wrong the next day when Fudge is taken to the movie theater and purposely makes himself almost lost. Then his father cooks a rather nasty-tasting mushroom omelet, which Fudge enjoys but then throws a tantrum when his father throws it away. The last straw is when Peter gets home from school to check Dribble. First he asks his mother, and then Fudge, who would not answer until Peter yanks pots out of his hand. The answer results in hospitalization because it was that he had swallowed Peters pet turtle. It turns out to be dead when the doctors got it out of Fudge, so Peters father gets Peter a dog to apologize about only giving attention to Fudge and not caring about the swallowed turtle. Peter names the dog Turtle to remind him. My Opinion The best thing about this book is the humor. You cannot stop yourself from laughing at all the funny stunts that Peter’s younger brother Fudge pulls, or even at Peter’s reactions towards him. Tales of the Fourth Grade Nothing really grasps the concept of the funny side of siblings’ relationships. What I didn’t enjoy so much was that the attitude of Peter’s parents towards him throughout the book. I felt sorry for Peter at times and wished that his parents would consider his feelings too. It can be very frustrating being up against a younger baby brother, and the parents needed to be a lot more attentive to Peter than they were. This book is different from the other books that I have read because it is light, and humorous. Other books I have read have been really intense, creepy, or even boring. However, this book turned out to be pleasantly entertaining and relaxing at the same time. Other books have taken me about 1-2 weeks to read, but this book was so enjoyable that I couldn’t put it down and so I ended up completing it in just one weekend. I definitely recommend this book to my classmates because I know that everyone can sympathize with Peter’s character. Everyone has annoying siblings and have had many frustrating situations with them. I’m sure there have been many times when one has been falsely blamed or punished for their sibling’s actions. This book deals with these type of situations in a humorous way so that the reader can actually have a good chuckle when he or she relates the situations in the book to their past or current experiences, and see the brighter side of having sisters and/or brothers. Heart to Heart I have decided to interview the main character in the novel, Peter Warren Hatcher, a nine year old brother of an annoying baby brother named Farley Drexel Hatcher (Fudge). Me: So, tell me about yourself Peter. Peter: That’s easy, I’m nine years old, I live with my parents and two year old brother in New York City, near Central Park. My best friend is Jimmy Fargo, and I am in fourth grade. Me: What’s it like having a younger brother? Peter: Well, I’m not going to lie. It’s pretty tough. He’s always stealing my parents’ attention by doing naughty things. I get caught and have to try to set an example for him all the time, or compromising. For example, once there was a time when were at the shoe store and he threw a fit because I didn’t buy the same shoes as him. My mother made me buy the same ones just so that he could stop making a scene. I think when I like him the most is when he’s sleeping. Me: Surely it can’t be that bad? Peter: Are you kidding? Fudge is one crazy kid. He throws tantrums in public, embarrasses me, and is always getting in my way. I was forever trying to convince my parents to get me a lock for my room, but they just didn’t believe in locking out family members. They realized that they were wrong when he snuck into my room and ruined a class project. They ended up buying a lock but Fudge still managed to get in my room and swallow my pet turtle, Dribble. Me: Well Peter, it seems that you had quite a predicament with your pet turtle and Fudge. What were your feelings when your baby brother swallowed your pet? Peter: At first, I felt very upset and angry. I was upset because I was worried about what will happen to my pet, whether he would be able to make it or not. When I my mother yelled at me for even asking such a dumb question, I felt angry. How was I supposed to know that my poor turtle Dribble, would never make it out alive? I was also angry because all my parents cared about was Fudge. They weren’t even angry with him for going into my room without permission. Me: How did things turn out when Fudge got back from the hospital? Peter: Much better. My parents realized that they were hard on me, and appreciated my patience and cooperation. They rewarded me with my very own dog. (Laughing) He’s too big for Fudge to swallow! About the Author Judy Blume was born on February 12, 1938; her birthplace is Elizabeth, New Jersey. She completed her Bachelor’s degree in Education from New York University in 1961. Judy Blume has written 22 books and has won more than 90 awards. More than 65 million copies of her books have been sold, and have been translated into 20 languages. With so many books you might wonder where she gets all her ideas†¦ â€Å"Ideas come from everywhere-memories of my own life including my children’s lives,† says Judy Blume. Judy lives with her husband George Cooper, who writes non-fiction, and have three grown children and one grandchild whose first word was, â€Å"book! †

How to Build the Best Social Media Promotion Schedule For Your Content

How to Build the Best Social Media Promotion Schedule For Your Content You know that creating amazing content takes a lot of time. When your content doesn’t get the views it deserves, though you wonder if it was worth the time. There is a simple fix for that problem. Sharing your content  on social media with a coordinated social media promotion plan. But, before you can get results, you need content thats worth sharing in the first place. Thats where this blog post comes in. You’re going to learn: How to understand what your audience wants  so you can create and share the right content to reach them. How to find shareable talking points in your content  that can easily be repurposed on social media. How to build a promotion schedule that maximizes traffic and shares. In short, what youll find here is a complete guide to creating and scheduling social promotion to maximize your contents value. How To Build The Best Social Media Promotion Schedule For Your ContentGrab Your Free Social Media Promotion Plan   Kit This kit includes three templates to help you plan and execute an effective content promotion strategy: Social Media Promotion Posting Schedule Template: Plan out how often youll post on each network. Social Media Calendar: Then schedule all your posts ahead of time in one place. Social Media Promotional Insights Report: Show your results with this simple reporting template. Get them all free now and execute the advice in this post more easily. ... Then Check Out the New and Improved ReQueue ReQueue is the industry's only intelligent social media automation tool, built into .And now it's improved and better than ever: Set it and forget it (with confidence):  Choose posts to reshare and let handle the rest. Reshare your best posts (with intelligence):  Never worry again about sending too many or too few posts. Customize sharing groups (with granular control):  Use Placeholder Groups to customize clusters of messages on the days and times you choose. Ready to try it yourself? Get it free for 14 days and start saving time on social media marketing now. Understand What Your Audience Is Going To Get Out Of Your Content You write your content based on one goal. That could be informing your readers of a new product, or sharing answers to frequently asked questions. Your audience reads your content because they’re being driven by a different goal. They could be looking to learn something new, gather information about your product, or explore more of what your company is about. Your content you share on social media should aim for the overlap between these two goals. But not just the content that you're planning on sharing with your followers. Your social media messages also play a role. By figuring out that intersection between your goals and your audience’s goals, you'll be able to write stronger messages that will drive them to the landing page, blog post, podcast or any other type of evergreen content that you’ve created. The second question you need to ask yourself is what is your audience going to get from your content? People are not going to care unless there's something in it for them. That sounds harsh but the reality is, your audience is going to ask what's in it for me? Your social media messages need to be able to answer that question and inspire them to click. Recommended Reading: The Easy 5-Step Content Plan Template That Will Make Every Piece Amazing Now that you know how to handle WIIFM and the goals behind why you created your content, you can begin to plan out your social media messages and create the right tone and conversation that encourages your audience to interact with your content. In essence, you're going to need to reread your content and pulling out the best talking points based on what your audience is going to get from your content. Things like: What will your readers leave knowing? What is a call to action that would drive them to click? What results should they expect to see after they read your content? Statistics, numbers, and quotes. Write Compelling Social Media Messages The first step in creating compelling social media messages involves tapping into the emotional side of your audience. It's at this point that you're going to dig deep and think about what's in it for them? Let's say for example that I wrote a blog post on creating inspiring Instagram content. I'd think about what my readers are going to get after they finish reading the blog post. That might include: How to think outside-the-box to execute more creative Instagram campaigns. How to increase engagement with better-quality photos. What's the optimal post frequency for the next network? Ultimately, they'll feel better prepared to rock at Instagram marketing, without spending hours of trial and error figuring things out themselves. Helping your audience build new skills while saving time? Sounds like a good goal to me! Once I had determined the benefit to my audience, I would aim my social media messages  at those takeaways. Suddenly you have clear benefits, a clear aim, and an emotional appeal to drive clicks to your content. Successful social posts have: 1. Clear benefit. 2. Clear aim. 3. Emotional appeal.How can you translate that into social media copy? In short, you have to maximize the few words that you have. This is where those talking points come into play. Ask yourself these things before you start: Is the message I’ve written  clearly communicating one of the talking points I selected earlier? Are my readers getting the best idea of what my content is about? Is this going to appeal to them in a way that will encourage them to interact with my content? Recommended Reading: The Best Social Media Copywriting Guide to Be a Social Word Ninja Create Messages Around Statistics From Your Content One way to create compelling messages is including statistics that you’ve compiled in your content. For example, when we were promoting our social media posting schedule we found out that we could help users increase their traffic by 192%. Now if someone told me that I could increase my traffic by 192%, I’d want to find out how. Here’s another example of another statistic that from our blog on content promotion tactics. Grow your traffic by 3,150% with tip #19 of 100+ blog promotion tactics. https://t.co/HCGhkxIrcr pic.twitter.com/kQQIzEuqPI (@) June 29, 2017 Statistics give someone a data point to fall back on because they’ve been backed by a process that is repeatable and they can prove those statistics to their team. Create Messages Around A Compelling CTA The second type of message that you can create promote your content involves creating a compelling CTA. Telling your audience what to do and what they're going to get out of your content is a great way to encourage clicks. For example, Hamilton creator Lin Manuel Miranda encouraged people to pick up the new karaoke soundtrack for Hamilton and record them singing along. The call-to-action in this case is to buy the soundtrack and sing along. Those karaoke parties?Theyre called #Hamiltunes.Go make one for free wherever you are!Read more: https://t.co/3hvyIrDDxz https://t.co/L5Bq45oqRx Lin-Manuel Miranda (@Lin_Manuel) June 30, 2017 Another great CTA social media message example is this Instagram post from Barnes and Noble. They’re maximizing their book sales by encouraging fans to check out a list of gift for graduates that they created. Need some tutoring to help figure out what to get the students in your life? Check out our collection of "Gifts Ideas for Every Graduate" using the link in our bio! A post shared by Barnes Noble (@barnesandnoble) on May 25, 2017 at 2:32pm PDT Create Messages Telling Your Audience What They’re Going To Get When They Read Your Content One of the best things you can do when you’re crafting your social media messages is to tell you audience what they’re going to be getting when they read your content. If I read a message that says I’m going to get 15 different ideas on how to style my hair in a hurry, I hope that’s what I get if I click on the article. That’s why misleading titles or clickbait drive everyone crazy. You’re not being honest about what they’re going to get from your content.

Three Domain System

Three Domain System The Three Domain System, developed by Carl Woese, is a system for classifying biological organisms. Over the years, scientists have developed several systems for the classification of organisms. From the late 1960s, organisms had been classified according to a Five Kingdom system. This classification system model was based on principles developed by Swedish scientist Carolus Linnaeus, whose hierarchical system groups organisms based on common physical characteristics. The Three Domain System As scientists learn more about organisms, classification systems change. Genetic sequencing has given researchers a whole new way of analyzing relationships between organisms. The current system, the Three Domain System, groups organisms primarily based on differences in ribosomal RNA (rRNA) structure. Ribosomal RNA is a molecular building block for ribosomes. Under this system, organisms are classified into three domains and six kingdoms. The domains are Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya. The kingdoms are Archaebacteria (ancient bacteria), Eubacteria (true bacteria), Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia. Archaea Domain This domain contains single-celled organisms known as archaea. Archaea have genes that are similar to both bacteria and eukaryotes. Because they are very similar to bacteria in appearance, they were originally mistaken for bacteria. Like bacteria, Archaea are prokaryotic organisms and do not have a membrane-bound nucleus. They also lack internal cell organelles and many are about the same size as and similar in shape to bacteria. Archaea reproduce by binary fission, have one circular chromosome, and use flagella to move around in their environment as do bacteria. Archaea differ from bacteria in cell wall composition and differ from both bacteria and eukaryotes in membrane composition and rRNA type. These differences are substantial enough to warrant that archaea have a separate domain. Archaea are extreme organisms that live under some of the most extreme environmental conditions. This includes within hydrothermal vents, acidic springs, and under Arctic ice. Archaea are divided into three main phyla: Crenarchaeota, Euryarchaeota, and Korarchaeota. Crenarchaeota include many organisms that are hyperthermophiles and thermoacidophiles. These archaea thrive in environments with great temperature extremes (hyperthermophiles) and in extremely hot and acidic environments (thermoacidophiles).Archaea known as methanogens are of the Euryarchaeota phylum. They produce methane as a byproduct of metabolism and require an oxygen-free environment.Little is known about Korarchaeota archaea as few species have been found living in places such as hot springs, hydrothermal vents, and obsidian pools. Bacteria Domain Bacteria are classified under the Bacteria Domain. These organisms are generally feared because some are pathogenic and capable of causing disease. However, bacteria are essential to life as some are part of the human microbiota. These bacteria preform vital functions, such as enabling us to properly digest and absorb nutrients from the foods we eat. Bacteria that live on the skin prevent pathogenic microbes from colonizing the area and also aid in the activation of the immune system. Bacteria are also important for the recycling of nutrients in the global ecosystem as they are primary decomposers. Bacteria have a unique cell wall composition and rRNA type. They are grouped into five main categories: Proteobacteria: This phylum contains the largest group of bacteria and includes E.coli, Salmonella, Heliobacter pylori, and Vibrio. bacteria.Cyanobacteria: These bacteria are capable of photosynthesis. They are also known as blues include Borrelia burgdorferi (cause Lyme disease) and Treponema pallidum (cause syphilis). Eukarya Domain The Eukarya domain includes eukaryotes or organisms that have a membranes include algae, amoeba, fungi, molds, yeast, ferns, mosses, flowering plants, sponges, insects, and mammals. Comparison of Classification Systems Five Kingdom System: MoneraProtistaFungiPlantaeAnimalia Archaea Domain Bacteria Domain Eukarya Domain Archaebacteria Kingdom Eubacteria Kingdom Protista Kingdom Fungi Kingdom Plantae Kingdom Animalia Kingdom Three Domain System As we have seen, systems for classifying organisms change with new discoveries made over time. The earliest systems recognized only two kingdoms (plant and animal). The current Three Domain System is the best organizational system we have now, but as new information is gained, a different system for classifying organisms may later be developed.

Why has the World Trade Organisation failed to establish a free trade Coursework

Why has the World Trade Organisation failed to establish a free trade regime - Coursework Example However, in practice, failures in the context of the WTO process have not been avoided – signs of this trend have been revealed during the Round of Tokyo where the issue of the establishment of WTO appeared for first time. In the above Round the lack of agreement on the Agenda’s major issues (Lowenfeld et al., 2003, p.58) indicated the severe procedural problems that would follow. The introduction of WTO has been related to the achievement of specific targets. The increase of cooperation among the member states in regard to the international trade has been the main goal of the particular organization. Another similar aim has been the improvement of the terms of trade in the context of the international community – a fact that could also benefit the conditions of trade within national markets. In practice, WTO has failed to meet the expectations of its creators. A series of facts can be used for explaining the specific phenomenon. At a first level, the development of the procedure established by WTO requires the use of accurate and updated data. Otherwise, the fairness of the procedure can be doubted – leading to severe delays in regard to the resolution of the dispute involved (World Trade Organization, 2005, p.2106). The lack of accurate data necessary in the discussion of disputes before the WTO’s relevant bodies (the panel or the Appel late Body) is a common problem. The above problem has led to the decrease of the organization’s credibility as a key negotiator in the resolution of disputes on international trade. In accordance with Deutsch et al. (2001) one of the most important problems of WTO as an institution of the international community is its weakness to promote effective solutions in regard to key international trade problems. The weakness of this institution – compared to other international organizations – is the reason for the failure of WTO to proceed to the analytical

Management Skills Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Management Skills - Essay Example I have high self-awareness such that I know a lot about myself, my attitudes, beliefs, emotions and many other traits that I have. I have found out that one cannot have all the good qualities and therefore I have identified my strength and weaknesses from colleagues and this has helped me improve in areas that I initially thought to be my strong points. I also talk to others about myself so that they are able to know exactly who I am. This is good because it fosters good relations between a manager and the employees as they know exactly what I like and what I do not like.In a normal working day, a manager is facing d with stressful events, the pressure to produce results and deadlines to meet. In such situations, I ensure that I prioritize events and work so that the most important things come first. This helps me a lot to avoid stressful moments when work has to be submitted and yet I have not completed it. Besides that to ensure that I do not break down as a result of work stress I ensure that I go to work out every day before I go to work. This makes me fit and keeps me going.Problems are part of the life of a manager. There are routine problems that will usually occur each and every day or occasionally. It is important as a manager to be prepared to handle the problem in a professional way. Therefore in such cases, I make sure I understand what the problem is through careful definition. After knowing what the problem is I generate as many solutions as possible that can be used to solve the problem.

Literature Comparison: The Great Gatsby and The Motorcycle Diaries

Literature Comparison: The Great Gatsby and The Motorcycle Diaries What it makes us unique, is our way of being; no one is equal to other, all of us are different in every single way, and this is the most important characteristic of the human beings, but sometimes our way of being is not the right one. There exist people that spend their lives thinking in the welfare of the rest but in the other hand there exist people that spend their lives thinking only about themselves. Examples of these two types of people are shown in the books The Motorcycle Diaries by Ernesto Che Guevara and The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. The great Gatsby is a book that is developed by the 1920s in the twentieth century and it is set in Long Islands North Shore, the book is narrated by Nick, a man who lived next to a mysterious and rich man called Jay Gatsby, they lived in the west coast of Long Island the less popular one. Jay Gatsby was a young rich man with a turbulent past, he was not have a position in the society that surrounded him and nobody knew how he had obtained his fortune. Some people believed that he had gained his fortune with the illegal sale of alcohol they believed that Gatsby was a bootlegger, Anyway and despite the great parties that he organized for the people of Long Island, he was a lonely man, because he only wanted to revive the past in order to be with the love of his life Daisy, who was also cousin of Nick; nevertheless, Daisy was married with the millionaire Tom Buchanan with who had a three years old daughter, Pam, they lived in the east coast of Long Island the most popular one, they wer e different from Gatsby because they were rich from birth, and they had a place in the society of those years. When Gatsby met Daisy he was a soldier of the militia and he was not rich, when he came back from the military service he discovered that Daisy was married with Tom and he decided to spend his life trying to have money in order to give to daisy what she deserved. When Gatsby was younger he had a mentor Dan Cody who helped him to make his fortune as a result Gatsby became rich but lonely, he lived in a big mansion and he gave parties whit the only reason that he hopped that some day Daisy come to one of his parties, actually one day Gatsby decided to invite to one of his parties to Nick his neighbor, when nick received the invitation he was surprised and he decided to go but he did not know that Gatsby invited him with the only reason that he knew that he was cousin of his love interest; Daisy, in the party Gatsby met Nick and they became friends but this friendship to Gatsb y had a purpose that was to join with Daisy again. Gatsby could achieve his purpose and he could join Daisy through Nick, and they started an affair and Gatsby could have what he wanted that was recover Daisy but when Tom discovered the affair of his wife with Gatsby, he asked them and Daisy recognized the affair but and she escaped with Gatsby in the car but in the road she hit Myrtle, the mistress of his husband, Tom, with the car and she killed her, and Gatsby in certainly way decided to do not tell anyone that Daisy killed Myrtle because he loved her but Daisy finally decided to stay with his husband because she was a woman of society and also she was very interesting in money and stability. Gatsby was not a bad man but he spent his life thinking in how to obtain what he wanted, he also did not think in the daughter of Daisy or what will happen with her if her mother escaped with him, he did not care about her and her husband he only was thinking in that he wanted to be with Dai sy again, in fact, he spent a lot of money in those extravagant parties in which he did not participate he only watched through the windows of the house looking to the people that were in his there with the hope that Daisy arrived to at least one of his outrageous parties, he was thinking all the time in how to obtain what he wanted in order to be happy no matter how. On the other hand the book The Motorcycle Diaries by Ernesto Che Guevara is a book of notes that Ernesto wrote during his trip with his friend Alberto Granada; Ernesto was a young medical student of medicine tired of school and excited to see the world and Alberto was working in a leprosy hospital in Argentinas Cà ³rdoba Province, and because of this he and his friend decided to do a trek through South America in an old motorcycle called the mighty one (la poderosa). The trip took eight months, the travel started in Cà ³rdoba and they left Argentina to go to Chile, they arrived in this country in Osorno passing through all the country to leave it to go to Perà º they leave this country and then they went to Colombia and finally Venezuela however they could not finish the trip in the motorcycle because they had to leave it in Santiago, Chile because the mighty one did not work any more. This book shows the trip of these two young men by the perspective of Ernesto, he wrote all the adventures and things that they did, and saw during their trek through South America. Guevaras political consciousness began to stir in this trip as he and Alberto moved into the mining country, Chile. They visited Chuquicamata copper mine, the worlds largest open-pit mine and the primary source of Chiles wealth in those years. It was run by U.S. mining monopolies and viewed by many as a symbol of foreign domination, and also to Ernesto was a symbol of human exploitation. During the trip Guevara also could apply his knowledge in medicine because he helped people that needed it for example in Chile he helped an old woman that was dying, he knew that he could not save the life of this woman, but he could stop the pain for a moment. Passages like this, change the mind of Ernesto because during the trip he could see that there existed and exist needed people not only in South America but all over the world. His political and social awakening has very much to do with this face-to-face contact with poverty, exploitation, illness, and suffering, [Internet reference: www.nationalgeographic.com] Guevara was a good man that changes his mind with this trip and after it he decided to star his career as a politician and help people, he decided this because of what the saw during this trip, for them all what they were seeing was in a certain way new because in Argentina they did not see aborigines for example, one thing that capture the attention of Ernesto and Alberto was the situation when they were traveling through Perà º and an Indian with his son who spoke Spanish approached them and asked them all about the land of Perà ³n, for the natives, these two young men came from a wonderful country where people could work and have a good pay for it, a developed country. Ernesto was very impressed by the old Inca civilization, riding trucks with the Natives and animals he felt a fraternity with the native people. Ernesto was a good man always worries for the rest, it is obvious why he was studying medicine, and it was during the trip that he made with his friend Alberto Granadas Jay Gatsby and Ernesto Guevara were two young men very different in what they wanted or their purposes in life, I think that these two men were not bad men specially Ernesto who spent his life in order to defend the rights of people. I believe that there not exist so many people that think like Ernesto but in the other hand there many people that think like the Great Gatsby, because most of people spend their lives thinking in how to obtain what they want, I think this is not bad but there are people that do not think in nothing else that how to get what they want and this people sometimes sin of selfish because they do not care if they make some damage to other people in order to have what they want to be happy. One phrase that represents what Ernesto felt after his trip is one that he wrote in his diary that says: I will be on the side of the people à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ I will take to the barricades and the trenches, screaming as one possessed, will stain my weapons with blood, and, mad with rage, will cut the throat of any vanquished foe I encounter,[Guevara, 2004 ] Many historians believe that this trip was the most important thing in the life of Ernesto that changes his mind to after be one of the most famous guerilla leaders in history, but nevertheless he was a person that was care about the rest all the time. On the other hand Jay Gatsby was not a bad person but he was always thinking how to obtain what he wanted that it was be with Daisy, in the sixth chapter of the book Nick narrated: He wanted nothing less of Daisy than that she should go to Tom and say: I never loved you. After she had obliterated four years with that sentence they could decide upon the more practical measures to be taken. One of them was that, after she was free, they were to go back to Louisville and be married from her house just as if it were five years agoà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Im going to fix everything just the way it was before, he said, nodding determinedly. Shell see.[Fitzgerald 1925:54] He was so stubborn in be with her that he did not realize that he could damage other persons, for example Myrtle; she died because Daisy and Gatsby were running away from Tom, and even Gatsby died because of this. He died because of his obsession with Daisy because of his obsession in getting what he wanted. Gatsby was killed by Myrtles husband because Tom told him that Gatsby hit Myrtle with the car, also in Gatsbys funeral there were only three people; Nick, Gatsbys father and the person that was guiding the funeral although Gatsby always gave partied to everyone none of these people came to his funeral he was alone also when he died. I think that is not bad fight for what you want but sometimes be too obsessive with something is not good because everything can go wrong. Gatsby was so obsessive with Daisy and all what he wanted that he forgot to live a real life and make real friends. As a conclusion it could be say that not all the people think or have the same personality, all of us have different expectations in life, everybody want different things in order to be happy a clear example was shown here with these two characters Jay Gatsby and Ernesto Guevara; the first one thought that what he needed in order to be happy was be with his old love Daisy, Gatsby was doing what most of the people do that is look for his own happiness and the second character; Guevara, believed that what he really want to do in his life was fight for the rights of the people he was looking for the happiness of the rest, this is the biggest difference of these two young men nonetheless it could be said that none of these two was wrong Gatsby wanted what all want to be happy and Guevara was like few people are that is see and be worry about what the rest need or what are the rights of the rest, however both died Gatsby died because of his obsession with Daisy and Guevara died because he was always fighting for the rights of the people who needed, he was so obsessed with this that he nowadays is seen as one of the most iconic characters of the twentieth century, he was one of the most famous guerrilla leaders of history but despite that he died.

Spoilage, Rework, and Scrap

Managers have found that improved quality and intolerance for high spoilage have lowered overall costs and increased sales. 18-2Spoilage—units of production that do not meet the standards required by customers for good units and that are discarded or sold at reduced prices. Rework—units of production that do not meet the specifications required by customers but which are subsequently repaired and sold as good finished units. Scrap—residual material that results from manufacturing a product. It has low total sales value compared to the total sales value of the product. 8-3Yes. Normal spoilage is spoilage inherent in a particular production process that arises even under efficient operating conditions. Management decides the spoilage rate it considers normal depending on the production process. 18-4Abnormal spoilage is spoilage that is not inherent in a particular production process and would not arise under efficient operating conditions. Costs of abnormal spoilag e are â€Å"lost costs,† measures of inefficiency that should be written off directly as losses for the accounting period. 18-5Management effort can affect the spoilage rate.Many companies are relentlessly reducing their rates of normal spoilage, spurred on by competitors who, likewise, are continuously reducing costs. 18-6Normal spoilage typically is expressed as a percentage of good units passing the inspection point. Given actual spoiled units, we infer abnormal spoilage as follows: Abnormal spoilage = Actual spoilage – Normal spoilage 18-7Accounting for spoiled goods deals with cost assignment, rather than with cost incurrence, because the existence of spoiled goods does not involve any additional cost beyond the amount already incurred. 18-8Yes.Normal spoilage rates should be computed from the good output or from the normal input, not the total input. Normal spoilage is a given percentage of a certain output base. This base should never include abnormal spoilage, which is included in total input. Abnormal spoilage does not vary in direct proportion to units produced, and to include it would cause the normal spoilage count to fluctuate irregularly and not vary in direct proportion to the output base. 18-9Yes, the point of inspection is the key to the assignment of spoilage costs. Normal spoilage costs do not attach solely to units transferred out.Thus, if units in ending work in process have passed inspection, they should have normal spoilage costs added to them. 18-10No. If abnormal spoilage is detected at a different point in the production cycle than normal spoilage, then unit costs would differ. If, however normal and abnormal spoilage are detected at the same point in the production cycle, their unit costs would be the same. 18-11No. Spoilage may be considered a normal characteristic of a given production cycle. The costs of normal spoilage caused by a random malfunction of a machine would be charged as a part of the manufacturing overhe ad allocated to all jobs.Normal spoilage attributable to a specific job is charged to that job. 18-12 No. Unless there are special reasons for charging normal rework to jobs that contained the bad units, the costs of extra materials, labor, and so on are usually charged to manufacturing overhead and allocated to all jobs. 18-13Yes. Abnormal rework is a loss just like abnormal spoilage. By charging it to manufacturing overhead, the abnormal rework costs are spread over other jobs and also included in inventory to the extent a job is not complete. Abnormal rework is rework over and above what is expected during a period, and is recognized as a loss for that period. 8-14A company is justified in inventorying scrap when its estimated net realizable value is significant and the time between storing it and selling or reusing it is quite long. 18-15Company managements measure scrap to measure efficiency and to also control a tempting source of theft. Managements of companies that report hi gh levels of scrap focus attention on ways to reduce scrap and to use the scrap the company generates more profitably. Some companies, for example, might redesign products and processes to reduce scrap. Others may also examine if the scrap can be reused to save substantial input costs. 8-16(5–10 min. ) Normal and abnormal spoilage in units. 1. Total spoiled units12,000 Normal spoilage in units, 5% ( 132,000 6,600 Abnormal spoilage in units 5,400 2. Abnormal spoilage, 5,400 ( $10$ 54,000 Normal spoilage, 6,600 ( $10 66,000 Potential savings, 12,000 ( $10$120,000 Regardless of the targeted normal spoilage, abnormal spoilage is non-recurring and avoidable. The targeted normal spoilage rate is subject to change. Many companies have reduced their spoilage to almost zero, which would realize all potential savings.Of course, zero spoilage usually means higher-quality products, more customer satisfaction, more employee satisfaction, and various beneficial effects on nonmanufacturing (for example, purchasing) costs of direct materials. 18-17(20 min. )Weighted-average method, spoilage, equivalent units. Solution Exhibit 18-17 calculates equivalent units of work done to date for direct materials and conversion costs. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-17 Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Gray Manufacturing Company for November 2006. |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |1,000 | | | |Started during current period |10,150a | | | |To account for |11,150 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |during current period: |9,000 |9,000 |9,000 | |Normal spoilage* |100 | | | |100 ( 100%; 100 ( 100% | |100 |100 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |50 | | | |50 ( 100%; 50 (100% | |50 |50 | |Work in process, ending†¡ (given) |2,000 | | | |2,000 ( 100%; 2,000 ( 30% | |2,000 |600 | |Accounted for 11,150 | | | |Work done to date | |11,150 |9,750 | a From below, 11,150 total units are accounted for. Therefore, units started during current period must be = 11,150 – 1,000 = 10,150. *Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 30%. 18-18(20(25 min. Weighted-average method, assigning costs (continuation of 18-17). Solution Exhibit 18-18 calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-18 Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summari ze Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing, Gray Manufacturing Company, November 2006. |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 2,533 |$ 1,423 |$ 1,110 | |Costs added in current period (given) |39,930 |12,180 |27,750 | |Costs incurred to date | |13,603 |28,860 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done to date | |(11,150 |( 9,750 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |$ 1. 22 |$ 2. 6 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$42,463 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | |Costs before adding normal spoilage |$37,620 | (9,000# ( $1. 22) + (9,000# ( $2. 96) | |Normal spoilage (100 units) |418 |(100# ( $1. 22) + (100# ( $2. 96) | |(A) Total cost of good units completed & transf. out |38,038 | | |(B) Abnormal spoil age (50 units) |209 |(50# ( $1. 22) + (50# ( $2. 96) | |(C) Work in process, ending (2,000 units) |4,216 |(2,000# ( $1. 22) + (600# ( $2. 6) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |$42,463 | | #Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-17. 18-19(15 min. )FIFO method, spoilage, equivalent units. Solution Exhibit 18-19 calculates equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-19 Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; First-in, First-out (FIFO) Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Gray Manufacturing Company for November 2006. | |(Step 2) | | |(Step 1) |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |1,000 | | | |Started during current period |10,150a | | | |To account for |11,150 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out duri ng current period: | | | | |From beginning work in process|| |1,000 | | | |1,000 ( (100% (100%); 1,000 ( (100% ( 50%) | |0 |500 | |Started and completed |8,000# | | | |8,000 ( 100%; 8,000 ( 100% | |8,000 |8,000 | |Normal spoilage* |100 | | | |100 ( 100%; 100 ( 100% | |100 |100 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |50 | | | |50 ( 100%; 50 ( 100% | |50 |50 | |Work in process, ending†¡ |2,000 | | | |2,000 ( 100%; 2,000 ( 30% | |2,000 |600 | |Accounted for |11,150 | | | |Work done in current period only | |10,150 |9,250 | a From below, 11,150 total units are accounted for.Therefore, units started during current period must be 11,150 – 1,000 = 10,150. ||Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 50%. #9,000 physical units completed and transferred out minus 1,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning work-in-process inventory. *Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion co sts, 100%. † Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 30%. 18-20(20(25 min. )FIFO method, assigning costs (continuation of 18-19).Solution Exhibit 18-20 calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-20 Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit Costs, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; FIFO Method of Process Costing, Gray Manufacturing Company, November 2006. | |Total | | | | Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given: $1 ,423 + $1,110) |$ 2,533 | | | |Costs added in current period (given) |39,930 |$12,180 |$27,750 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done in current period | |(10,150 |( 9,250 | |Cost per equivalent unit |______ |$ 1. 0 |$ 3 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$42,463 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs: | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | |Work in process, beginning (1,000 units) |$ 2,533 | | |Costs added to beg. work in process in current period |1,500 |(0a ( $1. 0) + (500a ( $3) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | | | |Started and completed before normal spoilage (8,000 units) |4,033 | | |Normal spoilage (100 units) |33,600 |(8,000a ( $1. 20) + (8,000a ( $3) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and transferred out |420 |(100a ( $1. 20) + (100a ( $3) | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (50 units) |38,053 | | |(C) Work in process, ending (2,000 units) |210 |(50a ( $1. 0) + (50a ( $3) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |4,200 |(2,000a ( $1. 20) + (60a ( $3) | | |$42,463 | | a Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-19. 18-21(30 min. )Weighted-average method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-21A calculates equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-21A Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Appleton Company for August 2006. |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | |Flow of Production |Physical Units|Direct |Conversion | | | |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) | 2,000 | | | |Started during current period (given) |10,000 | | | |To account for | 12,000 | | | |Good units completed and tsfd. out during current period: | 9,000 | 9,000 | 9,000 | |Normal spoilagea | 900 | | | | (900 [pic]100%; 900 [pic]100%) | | 900| 900 | |Abnormal spoilageb 300 | | | | (3 00 [pic]100%; 300 [pic]100%) | | 300| 300 | |Work in process, endingc (given) | 1,800 | | | | (1,800 [pic] 100%; 1,800 [pic] 75%) |______ | 1,800 | 1,350 | |Accounted for | 12,000 | | | |Work done to date | | 12,000 | 11,550 | | | | | | | aNormal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ? 9,000 = 900 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage | | in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | | | |bTotal spoilage = Beg. units + Units started – Good units tsfd. out – Ending units = 2,000 + 10,000 – 9,000 – 1,800 = 1,200; | | Abnormal spoilage = Total spoilage – Normal spoilage = 1,200 – 900 = 300 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage | | in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | | |cDegree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 75%. | | | 2 & 3. Solution Exhibit 18-21B calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials a nd conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process, using the weighted-average method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-21B Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing, Appleton Company, August 2006.    |   |Total |Direct |Conversion | | | |Production |Materials |Costs | | | |Costs | | | |(Step 3) |Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 28,600 | $17,700 |$ 10,900 | | |Costs added in current period (given) | 174,300 | 81,300 | 93,000 | | |Costs incurred to date | | $99,000 |$103,900 | | |Divide by equivalent units of work done to date | |[pic]12,000 |[pic]11,550 | | |Cost per equivalent unit | _______ | $ 8. 250 |$ 8. 957 | |(Step 4) |Total costs to account for |$20 2,900 | | | |(Step 5) |Assignment of costs: | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | | | Costs before adding normal spoilage |$155,211 |(9,000d [pic]$8. 25) + (9,000 d | | | | |[pic]$8. 957) | | | Normal spoilage (900 units) | 15,521 |(900d [pic]$8. 25) + (900d [pic]$8. 9957) | |(A) | Total costs of good units completed and transferred out | 170,732 | | | |(B) |Abnormal spoilage (300 units) | 5,174 |(300d [pic] $8. 25) + (300d [pic] $8. 9957) | |(C) |Work in process, ending (1,800 units): | 26,994 |(1,800d [pic]$8. 25) + (1,350d | | | | |[pic]$8. 957) | |(A) + (B) + (C) |Total costs accounted for |$202,900 | | | | | | | | | |dEquivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in step 2 of Solution Exhibit 18-21A. | 18-22 (30 min. )FIFO method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-22A calculates equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-22A Summarize Output in Physi cal Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; FIFO Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Appleton Company for August 2006. |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | |Flow of Production |Physical Units |Direct |Conversion Costs | | | |Materials | | |Work in process, beginning (given) | 2,000 | | | |Started during current period (given) | 10,000 | | | |To account for | 12,000 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out during current period: | | | | | From beginning work in process a | 2,000 | | | | [2,000 ? (100% – 100%); 2,000 ? 100% – 50%)] | | 0 | 1,000 | | Started and completed | 7,000b | | | | (7,000 ? 100%; 7,000 ? 100%) | | 7,000 | 7,000 | |Normal spoilagec | 900 | | | | (900 ? 100%; 900 ? 100%) | | 900 | 900 | |Abnormal spoilaged | 300 | | | | (300 ? 100%; 300 ? 00%) | | 300 | 300 | |Work in process, endinge (given) | 1,800 | | | | (1,800 ? 100%; 1,800 ? 75%) | | 1,800 | 1,350 | |Accounted for | 12,000 |_____ | | |Work done in current period only | | 10,000 | 10,550 | | | | | | | a Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 50%. | b 9,000 physical units completed and transferred out minus 2,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning | | work-in-process inventory. | | c Normal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ? 9,000 = 900 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this | | department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | | d Total spoilage = Beg. units + Units started – Good units tsfd. Out – ending units = 2,000 + 10,000 – 9,000 – 1,800 = 1,200 | | Abnormal spoilage = Actual spoilage – Normal spoilage = 1,200 – 900 = 300 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in | | in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | e Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 75%. | 2 & 3. Solution Exhibit 18-22B calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process, using the FIFO method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-22B Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; FIFO Method of Process Costing, Appleton Company, August 2006.    |   |Total |Direct |Conversion | | | |Production |Materials |Costs | | | |Costs | | | |(Step 3) |Work in process, beginning (given) ($17,700 + $10,900) |$ 28,600 | | | | |Costs added in current period (given) | 174,300 |$ 81,300 | $93,000 | | |Divide by equivalent units of work done in current period | |[pic]10,000 |[pic]10,550 | | |Cost per equivalent unit | | $ 8. 130 | $ 8. 152 | |(Step 4) |Total costs to account for |$202,900 | | | |(Step 5) |Assignment of costs: | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | | | Work in process, beginning (2,000 units) |$ 28,600 | | | | | Costs added to beg. work in process in current period | 8,815 |(0f ? $8. 13) | + (1,000f ? $8. 152) | | | Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | 37,415 | | | | | Started and completed before normal spoilage (7,000 units) | 118,616 |(7,000f ? $8. 13) | + (7,000f ? $8. 8152) | | | Normal spoilage (900 units) | 15,521 |(900f ? $8. 13) | + (900f ? $8. 8152) | |(A) | Total costs of good units completed and transferred out | 171,282 | | | |(B) |Abnormal spoilage (300 units) | 5,084 |(300f ? $8. 13) | + (300f ? $8. 8152) | |(C) |Work in process, ending (1,800 units): | 26,534 |(1,800f ? $8. 13) | + (1,350f ? $8. 152) | |(A) + (B) + (C) |Total costs accounted for |$202,900 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |fEquivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-22A. | 18-2 3 (30 min. ) Standard-costing method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-23A calculates equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs. (It is the same as Solution Exhibit 18-22A. ) SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-23A Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units; Standard Costing Method of Process Costing with Spoilage, Appleton Company for August 2006. |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | |Flow of Production |Physical Units |Direct |Conversion Costs | | | |Materials | | |Work in process, beginning (given) | 2,000 | | | |Started during current period (given) | 10,000 | | | |To account for | 12,000 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out during current period: | | | | | From beginning work in process a | 2,000 | | | | [2,000 ? (100% – 100%); 2,000 ? 100% – 50%)] | | 0| 1,000 | | Started and completed | 7,000b | | | | (7,000 ? 100%; 7,000 ? 100%) | | 7,000 | 7,000 | |Normal spoilagec | 900 | | | | (900 ? 100%; 900 ? 100%) | | 900 | 900 | |Abnormal spoilaged | 300 | | | | (300 ? 100%; 300 ? 00%) | | 300 | 300 | |Work in process, endinge (given) | 1,800 | | | | (1,800 ? 100%; 1,800 ? 75%) | | 1,800 | 1,350 | |Accounted for | 12,000 | | | |Work done in current period only | | 10,000 | 10,550 | | | | | | | a Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 50%. | b 9,000 physical units completed and transferred out minus 2,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning | | work-in-process inventory. | | c Normal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ? 9,000 = 900 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this | | department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | | d Total spoilage = Beg. units + Units started – Good units tsfd. Out – ending units = 2,000 + 10,000 – 9,000 – 1,800 = 1,200 | | Abnormal spoilage = Actual spoilage – Normal spoilage = 1,200 â€⠀œ 900 = 300 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in | | in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. | e Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 75%. | 2 & 3. Solution Exhibit 18-23B calculates the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process, using standard costing. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-23B Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process; Standard Costing Method of Process Costing, Appleton Company, August 2006.    |   |Total |Direct |Conversion | | | |Production |Materials |Costs | | | |Costs | | | |(Step 3) |Standard cost per equivalent unit (given) | $ 17. 50 | $8. 00 | $9. 50 | | |Work in process, beginning (given) | $ 25,500 | (2,000 ? $8. 00) |+ (1,000 ? $9. 50) | | |Costs added in current period at standard prices | 180,225 | (10,000 ? $8. 00) |+ (10,550 ? $9. 0) | |(Step 4) |Total costs to account for |$205,725 | | | |(Step 5) |Assignment of costs at standard costs: | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (9,000 units) | | | | | | Work in process, beginning (2,000 units) |$ 25,500 | | | | | Costs added to beg. work in process in current period | 9,500 |(0f ? $8. 00) |+ (1,000f ? $9. 50) | | | Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | 35,000 | | | | | Started and completed before normal spoilage (7,000 units) | 122,500 |(7,000f ? $8. 00) |+ (7,000f ? $9. 50) | | | Normal spoilage (900 units) | 15,750 |(900f ? $8. 00) |+ (900f ? $9. 0) | |(A) | Total costs of good units completed and transferred out | 173,250 | | | |(B) |Abnormal spoilage (300 units) | 5,250|(300f ? $8. 00) |+ (300f ? $9. 50) | |(C) |Work in proce ss, ending (1,800 units): | 27,225 |(1,800f ? $8. 00) |+ (1,350f ? $9. 50) | |(A) + (B) + (C) |Total costs accounted for |$205,725 | | | |f Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-23A. | 18-24(25 min. ) Weighted-average method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-24, Panel A, calculates the equivalent units of work done to date for each cost category in September 2006. 2. & 3.Solution Exhibit 18-24, Panel B, calculates the costs per equivalent unit for each cost category, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process using the weighted-average method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-24 Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Superchip, September 2006. PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units | |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Un its | | Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |400 | | | |Started during current period (given) |1,700 | | | |To account for |2,100 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |during current period: |1,400 |1,400 |1,400 | |Normal spoilage* |210 | | | |210 ( 100%; 210 ( 100% | |210 |210 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |190 | | | |190 ( 100%; 190 ( 100% | |190 |190 | |Work in process, ending†¡ (given) |300 | | | |300 ( 100%; 300 ( 40% | |300 |120 | |Accounted for |2,100 | | | |Work done to date | |2,100 |1,920 | *Normal spoilage is 15% of good units transferred out: 15% ? 1,400 = 210 units.Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Total spoilage = 400 + 1,700 – 1,400 – 300 = 400 units; Abnormal spoilage = Total spoilage ( Normal spoilage = 400 ( 210 = 190 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 40%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-24 PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 74,200 |$ 64,000 |$ 10,200 | |Costs added in current period (given) |531,600 |378,000 |153,600 | |Costs incurred to date | |$442,000 |$163,800 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done to date | |( 2,100 |( 1,920 | |Cost per equivalent unit costs of work done to date | |$210. 476 |$85. 125 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$605,800 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (1,400 units) | | | | |Costs before adding normal spoilage |$414,104 |(1,400#( $210. 476) + (1,400#( $85. 3125) | |Normal spoilage (210 units) |62,116 |(210# ( $210. 476) + (210# ( $85. 125) | |(A) Total cost of good units completed and transferred out | | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (190 units) |476,220 | | |(C) Work in process, ending (300 units) |56,199 |(190# ( $210. 476) + (190# ( $85. 3125) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |73,381 |(300# ( $210. 476) + (120# ( $85. 3125) | | |$605,800 | | # Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A. 8-25 (25 min. ) FIFO method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-25, Panel A, calculates the equivalent units of work done in the current period for each cost category in September 2006. 2. & 3. Solution Exhibit 18-25, Panel B, calculates the costs per equivalent unit for each cost category, summarizes the total Microchip Department costs for September 2006, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abno rmal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process under the FIFO method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-25 First-in, First-out (FIFO) Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Superchip, September 2006.PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units | | |(Step 2) | | |(Step 1) |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in rocess, beginning (given) |400 | | | |Started during current period (given) |1,700 | | | |To account for |2,100 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |during current period: | | | | |From beginning work in process|| |400 | | | |400 ( (100% (100%); 400 ( (100% ( 30%) | |0 |280 | |Started and completed |1,000# | | | |1,000 ( 100%; 1,000 ( 100% | |1,000 |1,000 | |Normal spoilage* |210 | | | |210 ( 100%; 210 ( 100% | |210 |210 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |190 | | | |190 ( 100%; 190 ( 100% | |190 |190 | |Work in process, ending†¡ |300 | | | |300 ( 100%; 300 ( 40% | |300 |120 | |Accounted for |2,100 | | | |Work done in current period only | |1,700 |1,800 | ||Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 30%. #1,400 physical units completed and transferred out minus 400 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning work in process inventory. Normal spoilage is 15% of good units transferred out: 15% ( 1,400 = 210 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Abnormal spoilage = Actual spoilage ( Normal spoilage = 400 ( 210 = 190 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 40%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-25 PANEL B: Steps 3, 4 and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning, $64,000 + $70,200 (given) |$ 74,200 | | | |Costs added in current period (given) |531,600 |378,000 |153,600 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done in | | | | |current period | |( 1,700 |( 1,800 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |$222. 353 |$ 85. 33 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$605,800 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs: | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (1,400 units) | | | | |Work in process, beginning (400 units) |$ 74,200 | | |Costs added beg. work in process in current period |23,893 |(0 § ( $222. 353) + (280 § ( $85. 33) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | | | |Started and completed before normal spoilage |98,093 | | |(1,000 units) | | | |Normal spoilage (210 units) |307,686 |(1,000 §($222. 353) + (1,000 §($85. 333) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and |64,614 |(210 §($222. 353) + (210 §($85. 333) | |transferred out | | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (190 units) |470,393 | | |(C) Work in process, ending (300 units) |58,461 |(190 §($222. 353) + (190 §($85. 33) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |76,946 |(300 §($222. 353) + (120 §( $85. 333) | | |$605,800 | |  §Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A. 18-26 (30 min. ) Standard costing method, spoilage. 1. Solution Exhibit 18-25, Panel A, shows the computation of the equivalent units of work done in September 2006 for direct materials (1,700 units) and conversion costs (1,800 units). (This computation is the same for FIFO and standard-costing. ) 2.The direct materials cost per equivalent unit of beginning work in process and of work done in September 2006 is the standard cost of $210 given in the problem. The conversion cost per equivalent unit of beginning work in process and of work done in Se ptember 2006 is the standard cost of $80 given in the problem. 3. Solution Exhibit 18-26 summarizes the total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process using the standard costing method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-26 Standard Costing Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Superchip, September 2006.Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process | |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Standard costs per equivalent unit (given) |$ 290 | $ 210 | $ 80 | |Work in process, beginning* |93,600 |(400 ( $210) + |(120 ( $80) | |Costs added in current period at standard prices |501,000 |(1,700 ( $210) + |(1,800 ( $80) | |(Step 4) Costs to account for $594,600 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of cost s at standard costs: | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |(1,400 units) | | | | |Work in process, beginning (400 units) |$ 93,600 | | |Costs added beg. ork in process in current period |22,400 |(0 § ( $210) + (280 § ( $80) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal | | | |spoilage |116,000 | | |Started and completed before normal spoilage | | | |(1,000 units) |290,000 |(1,000 § ( $210) + (1,000 § ( $80) | |Normal spoilage (210 units) |60,900 |(210 § ( $210) + (210 § ( $80) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and | | | |transferred out |466,900 | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (190 units) |55,100 |(190 § ( $210) + (190 § ( $80) | |(C) Work in process, ending (300 units) |72,600 |(300 § ( $210) + (120 § ( $80) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |$594,600 | | *Work in process, beginning has 400 equivalent units (400 physical units (100%) of direct materials and 120 equivalent units (400 physical units ( 30%) of conversion costs.  §Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Solution Exhibit 18-25, Panel A. 18-27(20–30 min. )Spoilage and job costing. 1. Cash 200 Loss from Abnormal Spoilage1,000 Work-in-Process Control1,200 Loss = ($6. 00 ( 200) – $200 = $1,000 Remaining cases cost = $6. 00 per case.The cost of these cases is unaffected by the loss from abnormal spoilage. 2. a. Cash 400 Work-in-Process Control 400 The cost of the remaining good cases = [($6. 00 ( 2,500) – $400] = $14,600 The unit cost of a good case now becomes $14,600 ( 2,300 = $6. 3478 b. Cash 400 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control800 Work-in-Process Control1,200 The unit cost of a good case remains at $6. 00. c. The unit costs in 2a and 2b are different because in 2a the normal spoilage cost is charged as a cost of the job which has exacting job specifications. In 2b however, normal spoilage is due to the production process, not the particular attributes of this specific job. These costs are, therefore, charged as part of manufacturing overhead and the manufacturing overhead cost of $1 per case already includes a provision for normal spoilage. 3. a. Work-in-Process Control 200 Materials Control, Wages Payable Control, Manufacturing Overhead Allocated 200 The cost of the good cases = [($6. 00 ( 2,500) + $200] = $15,200 The unit cost of a good case is $15,200 ( 2,500 = $6. 08 b. Manufacturing Department Overhead Control 200 Materials Control, Wages Payable Control, Manufacturing Overhead Allocated200 The unit cost of a good case = $6. 00 per case c. The unit costs in 3a and 3b are different because in 3a the normal rework cost is charged as a cost of the job which has exacting job specifications.In 3b however, normal rework is due to the production process, not the particular attributes of this specific job. These costs are, therefore, charged as part of manufacturing overhead and the manufacturing overhead cost of $1 per case already includes a provision for this normal rework. 18-28(15 min. ) Reworked units, costs of rework. 1. The two alternative approaches to account for the materials costs of reworked units are: a. To charge the costs of rework to the current period as a separate expense item as abnormal rework. This approach would highlight to White Goods the costs of the supplier problem. b. To charge the costs of the rework to manufacturing overhead as normal rework. 2.The $50 tumbler cost is the cost of the actual tumblers included in the washing machines. The $44 tumbler units from the new supplier were eventually never used in any washing machine and that supplier is now bankrupt. The units must now be disposed of at zero disposal value. 3. The total costs of rework due to the defective tumbler units include the following: a. the labor and other conversion costs spent on substituting the new tumbler units; b. the costs of any extra negotiations to obtain the replacement tumbler units; c. any higher price the existing suppl ier may have charged to do a rush order for the replacement tumbler units; and d. rdering costs for the replacement tumbler units. 18-29(25 min. )Scrap, job costing. 1. Journal entry to record scrap generated by a specific job and accounted for at the time scrap is sold is: Cash or Accounts Receivable490 Work-in-Process Control490 To recognize asset from sale of scrap. A memo posting is also made to the specific job record. 2. Scrap common to various jobs and accounted for at the time of its sale can be accounted for in two ways: a. Regard scrap sales as a separate line item of revenues (the method generally used when the dollar amount of scrap is immaterial): Cash or Accounts Receivable4,000 Sale of Scrap4,000 To recognize revenue from sale of scrap. b.Regard scrap sales as offsets against manufacturing overhead (the method generally used when the dollar amount of scrap is material): Cash or Accounts Receivable4,000 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control4,000 To record cash rais ed from sale of scrap. 3. Journal entry to record scrap common to various jobs at the time scrap is returned to storeroom: Materials Control4,000 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control4,000 To record value of scrap returned to storeroom. When the scrap is reused as direct material on a subsequent job, the journal entry is: Work-in-Process Control4,000 Materials Control4,000 To record reuse of scrap on a job. Explanations of journal entries are provided here but are not required. 18-30 (30 min. Weighted-average method, spoilage. Solution Exhibit 18-30 calculates the equivalent units of work done to date for each cost category, presents computations of the costs per equivalent unit for each cost category, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process using the weighted-average method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-30 Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spo ilage; Cleaning Department of the Alston Company for May. PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | | |Physical Units |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production | |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |1,000 | | | |Started during current period given) |9,000 | | | |To account for |10,000 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | |during current period: |7,400 |7,400 |7,400 | |Normal spoilage* | | | | |740 ( 100%; 740 ( 100% |740 |740 |740 | |Abnormal spoilage†  | | | | |260 ( 100%; 260 (100% |260 |260 |260 | |Work in process, ending†¡ (given) | | | | |1,600 ( 100%; 1,600 ( 25% |1,600 |1,600 |400 | |Accounted for | | | | |Work done to date |10,000 |10,000 |8,800 | *Normal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ? ,400 = 740 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion co sts, 100%. † Total spoilage = 1,000 + 9,000 – 7,400 – 1,600 = 1,000 units; Abnormal spoilage = 1,000 – 740 = 260 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 25%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-30 PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process | Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 1,800 |$ 1,000 |$ 800 | |Costs added in current period (given) |17,000 |9,000 |8,000 | |Costs incurred to date | |10,000 |8,800 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done to date | |(10,000 |( 8,800 | |Cost per equivalent unit |______ |$ 1 |$ 1 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$18, 800 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (7,400 units) | | | | |Costs before adding normal spoilage |$14,800 | (7,400# ( $1) + | (7,400# ( $1) | |Normal spoilage (740 units) |1,480 |(740# ( $1) + |(740# ( $1) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and | | | | |transferred out |16,280 | | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (260 units) |520 |(260# ( $1) + |(260# ( $1) | |(C) Work in process, ending (1,600 units) |2,000 |(1,600# ( $1) + |(400# ( $1) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |$18,800 | | | | | | | | #Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A above. 18-31(25 min. )FIFO method, spoilage.For the Cleaning Department, Solution Exhibit 18-31 calculates the equivalent units of work done in the current period for direct materials and conversion costs, presents the costs per equivalent unit for direct materials and conversion costs, summarizes the total costs for May, and assigns these cost s to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process under the FIFO method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-31 First-in, First-out (FIFO) Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Cleaning Department of the Alston Company for May. PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units | |(Step 2) | | |(Step 1) |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |1,000 | | | |Started during current period (given) | 9,000 | | | |To account for 10,000 | | | |Good units completed and transferred out during current period: | | | | | From beginning work in process|| |1,000 | | | | 1,000 ( (100% (100%); 1,000 ( (100% ( 80%) | |0 |200 | | Started and completed |6,400# | | | | 6,400 ( 100%; 6,400 ( 100% | |6,400 |6,400 | |Normal spoilage* |740 | | | | 740 ( 100%; 740% ( 100% | |740 |740 | |Abnorm al spoilage†  |260 | | | | 260 ( 100%; 260 ( 100% | |260 |260 | |Work in process, ending†¡ |1,600 | | | | 1,600 ( 100%; 1,600 ( 25% |______ |1,600 |400 | |Accounted for |10,000 |_____ |_____ | |Work done in current period only | |9,000 |8,000 | || Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 80%. #7,400 physical units completed and transferred out minus 1,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning work-in-process inventory. Normal spoilage is 10% of good units transferred out: 10% ( 7,400 = 740 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Total spoilage = 1,000 + 9,000 – 7,400 – 1,600 = 1,000 units Abnormal spoilage = 1,000 – 740 = 260 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100 %; conversion costs, 25%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-31 PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process |Total | | | | |Production |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) |$ 1,800 |$1,000 |$ 800 | |Costs added in current period (given) |17,000 |9,000 |8,000 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done in current period | |(9,000 |(8,000 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |1 |1 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$18,800 | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs: | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (7,400 units) | | | | |Work in process, beginning (1,000 units) |$ 1,800 | | |Costs added to beg. work in process in current period |200 |(0 § ( $1) + (200 § ( $1) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage |2,000 | | |Started and ompleted before normal spoilage (6,400 units) |12,800 |(6,400 § ( $1) + (6,400 § ( $1) | |Normal spoilage (740 units) |1,480 |(740 § ( $1) + (740 § ( $1) | |(A) Total costs of good units completed and transferred out |16,280 | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (260 units) |520 |(260 § ( $1) + (260 § ( $1) | |(C) Work in process, ending (1,600 units) |2,000 |(1,600 § ( $1) + (400 § ( $1) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |$18,800 | |  §Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A. 18-32 (35 min. Weighted-average method, Milling Department (continuation of 18-30). For the Milling Department, Solution Exhibit 18-32 calculates the equivalent units of work done to date for each cost category, presents computations of the costs per equivalent unit for each cost category, summarizes total costs to account for, and assigns these costs to units completed (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work in process using the weighted-a verage method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-32 Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Milling Department of the Alston Company for May. PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units |(Step 1) |(Step 2) | | | |Equivalent Units | | |Physical Units |Transferred- |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production | |in Costs |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |3,000 | | | | |Started during current period (given) |7,400 | | | | |To account for |10,400 | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out | | | | | |during current period: |6,000 |6,000 |6,000 |6,000 | |Normal spoilage* |300 | | | | |300 ( 100%; 300 ( 100%; 300 ( 100% | |300 |300 |300 | |Abnormal spoilage†  |100 | | | | |100 ( 100%; 100 (100%, 100 ( 100% | |100 |100 |100 | |Work in process, ending†¡ (given) |4,000 | | | | |4,000 ( 100%; 4,000 ( 0%; 4,000 ( 25% | |4,000 |0 |1,000 | |Accounted for |10,400 | | | | |Work done to date | |10,40 0 |6,400 |7,400 | *Normal spoilage is 5% of good units transferred out: 5% ? 6,000 = 300 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Total spoilage = 3,000 + 7,400 – 6,000 – 4,000 = 400 units. Abnormal spoilage = 400 – 300 = 100 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 0%; conversion costs, 25%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-32PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process | |Total | | | | | |Production |Transferred-in |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |costs |Materials |Costs | | | | | | | |(Step 3) Work in process, beg inning (given) |$ 8,900 |$ 6,450 |$ 0 |$2,450 | |Costs added in current period (given) |21,870 |16,280* |640 |4,950 | |Costs incurred to date | |22,730 |640 |7,400 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done to date | |(10,400 |( 6,400 |(7,400 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |$2. 1856 |$ 0. 0 |$ 1 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$30,770 | | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (6,000 units) | | | | | |Costs before adding normal spoilage |$19,713 |6,000# ( ($2. 1856 + $0. 10 + $1) | |Normal spoilage (300 units) |986 |300# ( ($2. 1856 + $0. 0 + $1) | |(A) Total cost of good units completed and transferred out | | | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (100 units) |20,699 | | |(C) Work in process, ending (4,000 units) |329 |100# ( ($2. 1856 + $0. 10 + $1) | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |9,742 |(4,000# ( $2. 1856)+(0# ( $0. 10)+(1,000# ( $1) | | |$30,770 | | *Total costs of good units completed and transferred out in Step 5 Panel B of S olution Exhibit 18-30. #Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A above. 18-33(25 min. )FIFO method, Milling Department (continuation of 18-31).Solution Exhibit 18-33 shows the equivalent units of work done in the Milling Department in the current period for transferred-in costs, direct materials, and conversion costs, presents the costs per equivalent unit for transferred-in costs, direct materials, and conversion costs, summarizes the total Milling Department costs for May, and assigns these costs to units completed and transferred out (including normal spoilage), to abnormal spoilage, and to units in ending work-in-process under the FIFO method. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-33 First-in, First-out (FIFO) Method of Process Costing with Spoilage; Milling Department of the Alston Company for May.PANEL A: Steps 1 and 2—Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units | | |(Step 2) | | |(Step 1) |Equivalent Units | | |Physical |Transferred- |Direct |Conversion | |Flow of Production |Units |in Costs |Materials |Costs | |Work in process, beginning (given) |3,000 | | | | |Started during current period (given) |7,400 | | | | |To account for |10,400 | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out during | | | | | |current period: | | | | | |From beginning work in process|| |3,000 | | | | |3,000 ( (100% ( 100%); 3,000 ( | | | | | |(100% ( 0%); 3,000 ( (100% ( 80%) | |0 |3,000 |600 | |Started and completed |3,000# | | | | |3,000 ( 100%; 3,000 ( 100%; 3,000 ( 100% | |3,000 |3,000 |3,000 | |Normal spoilage* |300 | | | | |300 ( 100%; 300% ( 100%; 300 ( 100% | |300 |300 |300 | |Abnormal spoilage†  100 | | | | |100 ( 100%; 100 ( 100%; 100 ( 100% | |100 |100 |100 | |Work in process, ending†¡ |4,000 | | | | |4,000 ( 100%; 4,000 ( 0%; 4,000 ( 25% | |4,000 |0 |1,000 | |Accounted for |10,400 | | | | |Work done in current period only | |7,400 |6,400 |5,000 | ||Degree of completion in this department : transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 0%; conversion costs, 80%. 6,000 physical units completed and transferred out minus 3,000 physical units completed and transferred out from beginning work-in-process inventory. *Normal spoilage is 5% of good units transferred out: 5% ( 6,000 = 300 units. Degree of completion of normal spoilage in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. † Total spoilage = 3,000 + 7,400 – 6,000 – 4,000 = 400 units. Abnormal spoilage = 400 – 300 = 100 units. Degree of completion of abnormal spoilage in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 100%. †¡Degree of completion in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 0%; conversion costs, 25%. SOLUTION EXHIBIT 18-33PANEL B: Steps 3, 4, and 5—Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, Summarize Total Costs to Account For, and Assign Total Costs to Units Complete d, to Spoiled Units, and to Units in Ending Work in Process | |Total | | | | | |Production |Transferred- |Direct |Conversion | | |Costs |in Costs |Materials |Costs | |(Step 3) Work in process, begin. given) | | | | | |($6,450 + $0 + $2,450) |$ 8,900 | | | | |Costs added in current period (given) |21,870 |16,280* |640 |4,950 | |Divided by equivalent units of work done in | | | | | |current period | |( 7,400 |( 6,400 |( 5,000 | |Cost per equivalent unit | |$ 2. 20 |$ 0. 10 |$ 0. 9 | |(Step 4) Total costs to account for |$30,770 | | | | |(Step 5) Assignment of costs: | | | | | |Good units completed and transferred out (6,000 units) | | | | | |Work in process, beginning (3,000 units) |$ 8,900 | | |Costs added to beg. work in process in | | | |current period |894 |(0 ( $2. 20)+(3,000 §( 0. 10)+( 600 § ( $0. 9) | |Total from beginning inventory before normal spoilage | | | |Started and completed before normal spoilage (3,000 units) |9,794 | | |Normal spoilage (300 units) | | | |(A) To tal costs of good units completed and |9,870 |3,000 § ( ($2. 20 + $0. 10 + $0. 99) | |transferred out |987 |300 § ( ($2. 20 + $0. 10 + $0. 9) | |(B) Abnormal spoilage (100 units) | | | |(C) Work in process, ending (4,000 units) |20,651 | | |(A)+(B)+(C) Total costs accounted for |329 |100 § ( ($2. 20 + $0. 10 + $0. 99) | | |9,790 |(4,000 §( $2. 20)+( 0 §($0. 10)+(1,000 §($0. 99) | | |$30,770 | | *Total costs of good units completed and transferred out in Step 5 Panel B of Solution Exhibit 18-31.  §Equivalent units of direct materials and conversion costs calculated in Step 2 in Panel A. 18-34 (20(25 min. ) Job-costing spoilage and scrap. 1. a.Materials Control 600 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control800 Work-in-Process Control1,400 (650 + 500 + 250 = 1,400) b. Accounts Receivable1,250 Work-in-Process Control1,250 2. a. The clause does not specify whether the 1% calculation is to be based on the input cost ($26,951 + $15,076 + $7,538) or the cost of the good output before the â€Å"1% normal spoilage† is added. b. If the inputs are used to determine the 1%: $26,951 + $15,076 + $7,538 = $49,565 1% of $49,565 = $495. 65 or $496, rounded. Then, the entry to leave the $496 â€Å"normal spoilage† cost on the job, remove the salvageable material, and charge manufacturing overhead would be: Materials Control 600Manufacturing Department Overhead Control304 Work-in-Process Control 904 ($800 spoilage minus $496 = $304 spoilage cost that is taken out of the job; $600 salvage value plus $304 = $904; or $1,400 minus $496 = $904) If the outputs are used to determine the 1%: $26,951 – $650 = $26,301 15,076 – 500 =14,576 7,538 – 250 = 7,288 $49,565$48,165 Then, $48,165 ( 1% = $481. 65 or $482, rounded. The journal entry would be: Materials Control 600 Manufacturing Department Overhead Control318 Work-in-Process Control918 18-35(30 min. ) Job costing, rework. 1. Work-in-Process Control (SM-5 motors) ($550 ( 80)44,000 Material s Control ($300 ( 80)24,000 Wages Payable ($60 ( 80)4,800Manufacturing Overhead Allocated ($190 ( 80)15,200 Total costs assigned to 80 spoiled units of SM-5 Motors before considering rework costs. Manufacturing Department Overhead Control (rework)9,000 Materials Control ($60 ( 50)3,000 Wages Payable ($45 ( 50)2,250 Manufacturing Overhead Allocated ($75 ( 50)3,750 Normal rework on 50 units, but not attributable specifically to the SM-5 motor batches or jobs. Loss from Abnormal Rework ($180 ( 30)5,400 Materials Control ($60 ( 30)1,800 Wages Payable ($45 ( 30)1,350 Manufacturing Overhead Allocated ($75 ( 30)2,250 Total costs of abnormal rework on 30 units (Abnormal rework = Actual rework – Normal rework = 80 – 50 = 30 units) of SM-5 Motors. Work-in-Process Control (SM-5 motors)6,000 Work-in-Process Control (RW-8 motors)3,000Manufacturing Department Overhead Allocated (rework)9,000 (Allocating manufacturing department rework costs to SM-5 and RW-8 in the proportion 1,000:5 00 since each motor requires the same number of machine-hours. ) 2. Total rework costs for SM-5 motors in February 2004 are as follows: Normal rework costs allocated to SM-5$ 6,000 Abnormal rework costs for SM-5 5,400 Total rework costs$11,400 We emphasize two points: a. Only $6,000 of the normal rework costs are allocated to SM-5 even though the normal rework costs of the 50 SM-5 motors reworked equal $9,000. The reason is that the normal rework costs are not specifically attributable to SM-5.For example, the machines happened to malfunction when SM-5 was being made, but the rework was not caused by the specific requirements of SM-5. If it were, then all $9,000 would be charged to SM-5. b. Abnormal rework costs of $5,400 are linked to SM-5 in the management control system even though for financial reporting purposes the abnormal rework costs are written off to the income statement. 18-36(30 min. )Job costing, scrap. 1. Materials Control10,000 Manufacturing Overhead Control10,000 (T o record scrap common to all jobs at the time it is returned to the storeroom) 2. Cash or Accounts Receivable10,000 Materials Control10,000 (To record sale of scrap from the storeroom) 3. A summary of the manufacturing costs for HM3 and JB4 before considering the value of scrap are as follows: |HM3 |JB4 |Total Costs | |Direct materials |$200,000 |$150,000 |$350,000 | |Direct manufacturing labor |60,000 |40,000 |100,000 | |Manufacturing overhead | | | | |(200% of direct manufacturing labor) |120,000 |80,000 |200,000 | |Total manufacturing costs |$380,000 |$270,000 |$650,000 | |Manufacturing cost per unit |$19 |$27 | | |($380,000[pic]20,000; $270,000[pic]10,000) | | | | The value of scrap of $10,000 generated during March will reduce manufacturing overhead costs by $10,000 from $200,000 to $190,000. Manufacturing overhead will then be allocated at 190% of direct manufacturing labor costs ($190,000 ? $100,000 = 190%) The revised manufacturing cost per unit would then be: |HM3 |JB4 |Tot al Costs | |Direct materials |$200,000 |$150,000 |$350,000 | |Direct manufacturing labor |60,000 |40,000 |100,000 | |Manufacturing overhead | | | | |(190% of direct manufacturing labor) |114,000 |76,000 |190,000 | |Total manufacturing costs |$374,000 |$266,000 |$640,000 | |Manufacturing cost per unit | $18. 70 | $26. 60 | | |($374,000[pic]20,000; $266,000[pic]10,000) | | | | 18-37(15(20 min. ) Physical units, inspection at various stages of completion (chapter appendix). |Inspection |Inspection |Inspection | | |at 15% |at 40% |at 100% | |Work in process, beginning (20%)* |14,000 |14,000 |14,000 | |Started during March |120,000 |120,000 |120,000 | |To account for |134,000 |134,000 |134,000 | |Good units completed and transferred out |113,000a |113,000a |113,000a | |Normal spoilage |6,600b |7,440c |6,780d | |Abnormal spoilage (10,000 – normal spoilage) |3,400 |2,560 |3,220 | |Work in process, ending (70%)* |11,000 |11,000 |11,000 | |Accounted for |134,000 |134,000 |134,000 | *D egree of completion for conversion costs of the forging process at the dates of the work-in-process inventories a14,000 beginning inventory +120,000 –10,000 spoiled – 11,000 ending inventory = 113,000 b6% ( (113,000 – 14,000 + 11,000) = 6% ( 110,000 = 6,600 c6% ( (113,000 + 11,000 ) = 6% ( 124,000 = 7,440 d6% ( 113,000 = 6,780 18-38(25(35 min. Weighted-average method, inspection at 80% completion (chapter appendix).The computation and allocation of spoilage is the most difficult part of this problem. The units in the ending inventory have passed inspection. Therefore, of the 80,000 units to account for (10,000 beginning + 70,000 started), 10,000 must have been spoiled in June [80,000 – (50,000 completed + 20,000 ending inventory)]. Normal spoilage is 7,000 [0. 10 ( (50,000 + 20,000)]. The 3,000 remainder is abnormal spoilage (10,000 – 7,000). Solution Exhibit 18-38, Panel A, calculates the equivalent units of work done for each cost category. We co mment on several points in this calculation: Ending work in process includes an element of normal spoilage since all the ending WIP have passed the point of inspection––inspection occurs when production is 80% complete, while the units in ending WIP are 95% complete. †¢ Spoilage includes no direct materials units because spoiled units are detected and removed from the finishing activity when inspection occurs at the time production is 80% complete. Direct materials are added only later when production is 90% complete. †¢ Direct materials units are included for ending work in process, which is 95% complete, but not for beginning work in process, which is 25% complete. The reason is that direct materials are added when production is 90% complete. The ending work in process, therefore, contains direct materials units; the beginning work in process does not.