Which of the following interpretations of the materials variances makes sense:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Let's break down what each option says about material variances and whether those statements align with standard cost variance interpretation.
Option A: 'RRC bought lower quality raw materials at a lower price. The lower price caused an favorable Direct Materials Price Variance. However, the lower quality of materials reduced efficiency in operations, resulting in an unfavorable Direct Materials Efficiency Variance. Nevertheless, the decision to change the production process paid off.'
- This option describes a favorable price variance due to paying less, but then claims the lower quality reduces efficiency, creating an unfavorable efficiency variance. If the production process change paid off, we would expect the overall outcome to be positive; however, the statement ends with a neutral or positive note about payoff that conflicts with the described unfavorable efficiency variance. The combination is inconsistent because lower quality material typically reduces both price efficiency and process performance, making it unlikely to simultaneously yield a favorable price variance and an unfavorable efficiency variance that still 'pays off' overall.
Option B: 'RRC bought higher quality raw materials at a higher price. The higher price caused an unfavorable Direct Materials Price Variance. However, the higher quality of materials improved efficiency in operations, resulting in a favorable Direct Materials Efficiency Variance. Overall, the decision to change the production process paid off.'
- This option matches the scenario: paying more for higher quality materials leads to an unfavorable price variance, but the material quality boosts efficiency, giving a favorable efficiency variance. If the efficiency gains are substantial enough, the overall effect can be positive, i.e., the production change pays off. This is a coherent interpretation consistent with how price variance and efficiency variance interact when quality improvements are made. 
Option C: 'RRC bought lower quality raw materials at a lower price. The lower price caused an favorable Direct Materials Price Variance. However, the lower quality of materials reduced efficiency in operations, resulting in an unfavorable Direct Materials Efficiency Variance. Overall, the decision to change the production process did not pay off.'
- Here, a lower price yields a favorable price variance, but lower quality reduces efficiency, producing an unfavorable efficiency variance. If the decision did not pay off, the combined effect would be negative overall; while that is possible, it contradicts the premise that the materials change did not pay off, which could be true, but the option asserts it did not pay off without considering any potential offsetting efficiency gains. The wording could be plausible, but it conflicts with the given correct interpretation when costs are adequately offset by efficiency gains. 
Option D: 'RRC bought higher quality raw materials at a higher price. The higher price caused an unfavorable Direct Materials Price Variance. However, the higher quality of materials improved efficiency in operations, resulting in a favorable Direct Materials Efficiency Variance. Nevertheless, the decision to change the production process did not pay off.'
- This option describes the same variance directions as Option B but concludes that the decision did not pay off, contradicting the idea that efficiency gains offset the higher price. If the efficiency variance is favorable due to higher quality, it would be inconsistent to declare that the overall decision did not pay off unless the magnitude of inefficiencies or other costs overwhelms the benefits. The conflict makes this option internally inconsistent.
Option E: 'RRC bought higher quality raw materials at a lower price. The lower price caused an favorable Direct Materials Price Variance. Moreover, the higher quality of materials improved efficiency in operations, resulting in a favorable Direct Materials Efficiency Variance. Overall, the decision to change the production process paid off.'
- This option asserts both price and efficiency variances are favorable while also claiming the lower price for higher quality materials, which is logically inconsistent (higher quality typically commands a higher price, not a lower one). The combination of higher quality with a lower price is unusual and economically dubious unless there were extreme market conditions; as stated, the reasoning is implausible and undermines the interpretation.

In summary, Option B provides a coherent and consistent narrative: higher quality materials bought at a higher price lead to an unfavorable price variance but a favorable efficiency (quality-driven) variance, and the overall decision pays off. The other options either present inconsistent or internally conflicting implications between price variance, efficiency variance, and overall payoff, or rely on economically questionable premises. A correct interpretation hinges on recognizing that price variance can be unfavorable due to higher purchase cost, while efficiency improvements from better materials can produce a favorable variance, together yielding a net positive outcome as described in Option B.

ACCTMIS 3300 AU2025 (2004) Midterm 2

Which of the following interpretations of the materials variances makes sense:

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Chris tells you that he budgeted the market size to be around 100,000 frames. However, the actual market size was 130,000 frames. Given this information, calculate the Market Size Variance.

Tell me which statement is consistent with the variances you have calculated so far.

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单