plz 9.18 and 9.20

strict conclusion is that the curreil ation of the irreducibles (c.R.. improved output quai conssdera make system B more attractive 9.17 llustrate th rate the reinvestment fallacy by supposing that, in Problem 9.15, ther system 2 could be rein vested at 40% in years 3 through 5 At the end of five years, the net future worth of system t $5000002.0114) $22 00067424) $47 762.80 iagram) and the net future worth of system 2 is (draw a time d , 40%, 4) Fw,-.. $75000(/72 ". 15%, 5) + $24D00(F)P, 15%, l )(F7P. 40%, 3) + s24 000(F7A 0114) 24 0001 15%2.7440)+ $24 000C7.1040) The efect of the reinvestment is to reverse the conclusion of Problem 9 STow, 'yuem a' ihe $95 375.40 better, Supplementary Problems 9.18) The executives of the XxYZ Company are considering the three independent proposals whose cash lows are given in Table 9.12. The MAR Ris l0%. Evaluate these three proposals by the NPV mehod Table 9-12 End of Year Proposal A Proposal B Proposal C $80 000 64610 2 45 000 64615028021.60 45 000 16461.50 28.021.6045 000 16461.50 28021.60 45000 $150000 Ans. NPVA-S21 80.87, NPVB-S8824.93. NPVc=-57355.69; proposal c is unacceptable. 9.19 Rework Problem 9.18 for MARR s 15%, An NPV s 53003.40, NPVs =0, NPYe-S21 527.68; proposals A and C are unacceptable and proposal B is barely acceptable 9.20 Evaluate the three proposals in Problem 9.18 using the ROR method and linear interpolation Ans. i:-12%, i s 15%, i&s 7.71%; since ic