Answered

IDNLearn.com provides a comprehensive platform for finding accurate answers. Discover in-depth and reliable answers to all your questions from our knowledgeable community members who are always ready to assist.

Select the correct locations in the table.

The table shows the federal government's budgeted revenue and expenditures from 2001 through 2010. Identify the years in which there was a budget surplus.

\begin{tabular}{|r|l|l|}
\hline Year & Revenue & Expenditure \\
\hline 2001 & \[tex]$8 trillion & \$[/tex]6 trillion \\
\hline 2002 & \[tex]$5 trillion & \$[/tex]7 trillion \\
\hline 2003 & \[tex]$8 trillion & \$[/tex]10 trillion \\
\hline 2004 & \[tex]$9 trillion & \$[/tex]7 trillion \\
\hline 2005 & \[tex]$15 trillion & \$[/tex]18 trillion \\
\hline 2006 & \[tex]$8 trillion & \$[/tex]10 trillion \\
\hline 2007 & \[tex]$6 trillion & \$[/tex]4 trillion \\
\hline 2008 & \[tex]$2 trillion & \$[/tex]4 trillion \\
\hline 2009 & \[tex]$7 trillion & \$[/tex]4 trillion \\
\hline 2010 & \[tex]$5 trillion & \$[/tex]9 trillion \\
\hline
\end{tabular}

Sagot :

GinnyAnsweridn
To identify the years in which there was a budget surplus, we need to compare the budgeted revenue to the expenditures for each year. A budget surplus occurs when the revenue is greater than the expenditures. Let's go through each year one by one to determine if there was a surplus.

- 2001:
- Revenue: \[tex]$8 trillion - Expenditure: \$[/tex]6 trillion
- Since \[tex]$8 trillion (revenue) > \$[/tex]6 trillion (expenditure), there is a surplus in 2001.

- 2002:
- Revenue: \[tex]$5 trillion - Expenditure: \$[/tex]7 trillion
- Since \[tex]$5 trillion (revenue) < \$[/tex]7 trillion (expenditure), there is no surplus in 2002.

- 2003:
- Revenue: \[tex]$8 trillion - Expenditure: \$[/tex]10 trillion
- Since \[tex]$8 trillion (revenue) < \$[/tex]10 trillion (expenditure), there is no surplus in 2003.

- 2004:
- Revenue: \[tex]$9 trillion - Expenditure: \$[/tex]7 trillion
- Since \[tex]$9 trillion (revenue) > \$[/tex]7 trillion (expenditure), there is a surplus in 2004.

- 2005:
- Revenue: \[tex]$15 trillion - Expenditure: \$[/tex]18 trillion
- Since \[tex]$15 trillion (revenue) < \$[/tex]18 trillion (expenditure), there is no surplus in 2005.

- 2006:
- Revenue: \[tex]$8 trillion - Expenditure: \$[/tex]10 trillion
- Since \[tex]$8 trillion (revenue) < \$[/tex]10 trillion (expenditure), there is no surplus in 2006.

- 2007:
- Revenue: \[tex]$6 trillion - Expenditure: \$[/tex]4 trillion
- Since \[tex]$6 trillion (revenue) > \$[/tex]4 trillion (expenditure), there is a surplus in 2007.

- 2008:
- Revenue: \[tex]$2 trillion - Expenditure: \$[/tex]4 trillion
- Since \[tex]$2 trillion (revenue) < \$[/tex]4 trillion (expenditure), there is no surplus in 2008.

- 2009:
- Revenue: \[tex]$7 trillion - Expenditure: \$[/tex]4 trillion
- Since \[tex]$7 trillion (revenue) > \$[/tex]4 trillion (expenditure), there is a surplus in 2009.

- 2010:
- Revenue: \[tex]$5 trillion - Expenditure: \$[/tex]9 trillion
- Since \[tex]$5 trillion (revenue) < \$[/tex]9 trillion (expenditure), there is no surplus in 2010.

Thus, there were budget surpluses in the years:
- 2001
- 2004
- 2007
- 2009
We greatly appreciate every question and answer you provide. Keep engaging and finding the best solutions. This community is the perfect place to learn and grow together. Find clear and concise answers at IDNLearn.com. Thanks for stopping by, and come back for more dependable solutions.