Nick Greene - ThoughtCo

Strong Acid Definition and Examples

A strong acid is one that is completely dissociated or ionized in an aqueous solution. It is a chemical species with a high capacity to lose a proton, H. In water, a strong acid loses one proton, which is captured by water to form the hydronium ion: HA(aq) H2O → H3O(aq) A−(aq) Diprotic and polyprotic acids may lose more than one proton, but the strong acid pKa value and reaction refer only to the loss of the first proton. Strong acids have a small logarithmic constant (pKa) and a large acid dissociation constant (Ka). Most strong acids are corrosive, but some of the superacids are not. In contrast, some of the weak acids (e.g., hydrofluoric acid) can be highly corrosive. As acid concentration increases, the ability to dissociate diminishes. Under normal conditions in water, strong acids dissociate completely, but extremely concentrated solutions do not. Examples of Strong Acids While there are many weak acids, there are few strong acids. The common strong acids include: HCl (hydrochloric acid)H2SO4 (sulfuric acid)HNO3 (nitric acid)HBr (hydrobromic acid)HClO4 (perchloric acid)HI (hydroiodic acid)p-toluenesulfonic acid (an organic soluble strong acid)methanesulfonic acid (a liquid organic strong acid) The following acids dissociate almost completely in water, so they are often considered to be strong acids, although they are not more acidic than the hydronium ion, H3O: HNO3Â  (nitric acid)HClO3Â  (chloric acid) Some chemists consider the hydronium ion, bromic acid, periodic acid, perbromic acid, and periodic acid to be strong acids. If the ability to donate protons is used as the primary criterion for acid strength, then the strong acids (from strongest to weakest) would be: H[SbF6]Â  (fluoroantimonic acid)FSO3HSbF5Â  (magic acid)H(CHB11Cl11)Â  (carborane superacid)FSO3HÂ  (fluorosulfuric acid)CF3SO3HÂ  (triflic acid) These are the superacids, which are defined as acids that are more acidic than 100% sulfuric acid. The superacids permanently protonate water. Factors Determining Acid Strength You may be wondering why the strong acids dissociate so well or why certain weak acids do not completely ionize. A few factors come into play: Atomic radius: As the atomic radius increases, so does acidity. For example, HI is a stronger acid than HCl (iodine is a larger atom than chlorine).Electronegativity: The more electronegative a conjugate base in the same period of the periodic table is (A-), the more acidic it is.Electrical charge: The more positive the charge on an atom, the higher its acidity. In other words, its easier to take a proton from a neutral species than from one with a negative charge.Equilibrium: When an acid dissociates, equilibrium is reached with its conjugate base. In the case of strong acids, the equilibrium strongly favors the product or is to the right of a chemical equation. The conjugate base of a strong acid is much weaker than water as a base.Solvent: In most applications, strong acids are discussed in relation to water as a solvent. However, acidity and basicity have meaning in nonaqueous solvent. For example, in liquid ammonia, acetic acid ionizes completely and may be considered a strong a cid, even though it is a weak acid in water.

Mapping the Issue Free Essays

Tammy Lin ENGL 1302 051 Brittain 5/11/12 Trimming the Fat of a Growing Problem Obesity is becoming a major problem to many Americans as well as many people around the world. Being the second cause of preventable death in the United States, obesity increases the risk of numerous adverse health problems including breast cancer, heart disease, type II diabetes, osteoarthritis, colon cancer, stroke, and more. Obesity is defined as an excess proportion of total body fat, with a person being considered obese if his or her weight is twenty percent or more above normal body weight. We will write a custom essay sample on Mapping the Issue or any similar topic only for you Order Now A common way to measure obesity is by calculating the body mass index. An individual is considered overweight if his or her BMI is between twenty five and thirty, while a person is seen as obese if his or her BMI is over thirty. With that said, it has been estimated that sixty million Americans twenty years and older are obese, which makes up thirty percent of the adult population; meanwhile, nine million children and teenagers ages six to nineteen are overweight. The number of overweight and obese Americans has increased since 1960, a trend that shows no sign of slowing down. In this paper I will review three main positions regarding the issue of ways to approach the multiplying rate of obesity. First, there are those who advocate for the implementation of fat taxes. With the administration of taxes on unhealthy foods and drinks, this group believes that it will significantly discourage the consumption of such foods and will, in turn, promote healthy and responsible eating. Second, there are those who remain persistent in maintaining the privacy of one’s decision making concerning food intake. With the expansion of diverse kinds of food production, this group considers an individual’s food preference as unique, exclusive, and personal. Third, there are those who believe that lowering the costs of healthy foods will encourage the purchase of nourishing and health-benefiting foods. They embrace the belief that most people would eat healthier if the food was more affordable. The first position is the support of fat taxes. The people who stand in this position are those who are concerned with America’s public health issue today, especially the issues centering on obesity. Lisa Baertlin recently ublished an article on Reuters, an international news agency headquartered in the UK, entitled â€Å"Battle Lines Drawn over Soda, Junk Food Taxes† in response to the the wide-growing obesity epidemic today, with the proposition that fat taxes could help save individuals their health and money. She claims that taxes could help make up for the at least one hundred an d forty seven billion dollars spent on treating diseases related to obesity and fund programs that battle for this issue. According to U. S. lawmakers, soda tax is one of the most probable sources that would most likely be used to tackle healthcare reform. In relativity to the taxing of cigarettes, these people believe that by taxing soda, it would also similarly reduce consumption and its revenue stream; by taxing more than ten percent for beverages, purchases would be cut down by eight to ten percent. According to a recent Thomson Reuters survey included within Baertlin’s article, â€Å"about fifty-eight percent of Americans are willing to bear a tax increase of one percent or more to support healthcare reform† (Baertlin 1), which proves that more than half of American citizens are willing to take a step forward for the promotion of a healthy nation. Writers like Baertlin sympathize with those who are in the center of the public health crisis today, specifically â€Å"overweight adolescents who are starting to suffer problems that used to plague middle-aged adults† (1). Baertlin herself is in favor of administering fat taxes and is certain that levies on fattening foods are an essential factor of any anti-obesity endeavor. The food industry plays a large part in the causes of obesity. Most food companies are culpable of false advertisement, which swallows consumers into their too-good-to-be-true trends. Journalist Karlee Weinmann contributed a piece to Business Insider concerning food companies’ false advertisement. In the article â€Å"14 False Advertising Scandals That Cost Brands Millions†, Weinmann states that for companies that cross the line to making false claims, it can cost millions of dollars, while also having to face public negativity. However, even with all this said, will companies modify their marketing policies for the greater good, or will they uphold their profits as far more important than a consumer’s right to know the truth? More than likely, most brands will continue to false advertise their products, which is why these people in this group believe that fat taxes are efficient in lowering consumption of soda and other health-stripping foods. According to Weinmann, â€Å"there’s a big difference between pushing the truth and making false claims. Is a product really ‘scientifically proven’, and are ‘results guaranteed’? † (Weinmann 1). Food brands such as Activia yogurt, Splenda, Kashi, and Eclipse gum have been caught with such false advertisement scandals; the more unhealthy the food really is, the more beneficial its company would make it seem. Writers like Weinmann identify with those who have been misled by deceitful food claims made by the companies they trusted. Therefore, supporters of fat taxes are certain that the implementation of fat taxes would solve these complications by creating more awareness and heedfulness when consumers purchase junk foods. The second position is the promotion of health education and that one’s food choice should not be hindered or influenced to reduce obesity. The people who stand in this position believe that an individual should have choices in the items he or she buy, and be guilt-free. In the article â€Å"Childhood Obesity: A Global Public Health Issue† published in International Journal of Preventive Medicine†, writer Amar Kanekar states that the main cause of childhood obesity in today’s public health crisis in both developed and underdeveloped countries is because of the disproportion between the child’s caloric intake and the calories effectively used for growth/development and physical activities. To these people, what we eat is not the sole reason of the cause of obesity; genetic, behavioral, and environmental are all constituents of childhood obesity. Moreover, many health-related risks are present when a child is obese; negative body-image and low self-esteem inevitably result in psychological and social issues. Cardiovascular disease, increased cholesterol levels, and high blood pressure are all possible potential health risks involved and that there is, indeed, â€Å"preventive programs that help regulate obesity by educating individuals about healthy nutrition and diseases† (Kanekar 2). According to a report presented from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, in the years of 2007-2008, there was an estimation that â€Å"16. % of children and adolescent in the age group of 2-19 years were obese†¦The data collected for the same period shows that the adolescent (age group 12-19 years) obesity has increased from 5. 0 to 18. 1%† (2). By letting people know about health hazards and the importance of physical exercise, the chance of obesity could greatly decrease. Those who are pro-food-choice would si de with Kanekar in that they believe there should not be any direct government intervention with food costs, but that there should be a public informing of the effects commonly eaten unhealthy foods would result in. Kanekar, Baertlin, and Weinmann all believe that the prevalence of obesity seen in children and adults is increasing and that some form of action must be done. While these writers see and support the benefits of the reduction of junk food intake, Kanekar is more focused on declaring health education, with the hope of lowering BMI and the rate of weight gain. All three authors recognize the importance of lowering consumption of fatty foods, but the position here does not endorse the advocating of fat taxes. The third position is lowering the costs of healthy foods. The people who stand in this position believe that by decreasing the costs of healthful foods sold, there would be a habit shift in the people’s purchases of fatty foods to foods that are much more nutritional. Journalist Katherine Bauer published an article entitled â€Å"Price and Availability Matter† in Room for Debate, a running commentary by outside contributors from The New York Times, where she states the â€Å"lack of access to high quality, reasonably priced fruits and vegetables and other healthful foods has been associated with poorer diets and, in many cases, higher risk for obesity. This is especially true among lower-income individuals whose purchasing habits are more sensitive to the cost of food† (Bauer 1). There is strong evidence that shows a clear impact between change in food access and the pricing on one’s purchasing habits. For example, there are programs that decrease the cost of healthier foods, which resulted in the increased purchasing of the healthier foods. Cheaper prices on healthy foods reduce one’s weight, even if the cost of junk foods remains the same price. A news report conducted from the USDA observed the BMI of children and how it changed in correlation to food prices. It was shown that â€Å"if the price of 100% juice decreases 10%, BMIs decreased . 3%. The same process works for lowfat milk (. 35% decrease) and dark, leafy vegetables (. 28% decrease)† (2). Moreover, Bauer identifies with those who receive low-income and struggle with the purchase of healthy foods, and also with those who believe that it is not only the wealthy that ‘deserve’ the most benefits from the healthy aisles in the food market. Bauer’s views is relatively similar with Baertlin, Weinmann, and Kanekar, in that public attitudes towards obesity and obesity policy should be given much more ttention than it is now, but Bauer herself has a different approach in this matter, especially from Kanekar. She believes that health education may not be sufficient enough to cause a significant awareness in individuals that junk foods should no longer be habitually purchased. Instead, she considers the perspective that by lowering healthy foods, there would be an effective overall change in the nation’s weight and BMI and that the idea would more readily fit within one’s budget. Works Cited Page Baertlein, Lisa. â€Å"Battle lines drawn over soda, junk food taxes. † Reuters [Los Angeles] 1 Sept 2009, n. pag. Print. Katherine, Bauer. â€Å"Price and Availability Matter. † New York Times. (2011): 1-2. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. Kanekar, Amar. â€Å"Childhood Obesity: A Global Public Health Issue. † Int J Prev Med. (2011): 2. Web. 4 Apr. 2012. Weinmann, Karlee. â€Å"14 False Advertising Scandals That Cost Brands Millions. † Business Insider. (2011): 1-2. Web. 4 Apr. 2012. lt;www. businessinsider. comgt;. How to cite Mapping the Issue, Papers

Mapping the Issue Free Essays

Tammy Lin ENGL 1302 051 Brittain 5/11/12 Trimming the Fat of a Growing Problem Obesity is becoming a major problem to many Americans as well as many people around the world. Being the second cause of preventable death in the United States, obesity increases the risk of numerous adverse health problems including breast cancer, heart disease, type II diabetes, osteoarthritis, colon cancer, stroke, and more. Obesity is defined as an excess proportion of total body fat, with a person being considered obese if his or her weight is twenty percent or more above normal body weight. We will write a custom essay sample on Mapping the Issue or any similar topic only for you Order Now A common way to measure obesity is by calculating the body mass index. An individual is considered overweight if his or her BMI is between twenty five and thirty, while a person is seen as obese if his or her BMI is over thirty. With that said, it has been estimated that sixty million Americans twenty years and older are obese, which makes up thirty percent of the adult population; meanwhile, nine million children and teenagers ages six to nineteen are overweight. The number of overweight and obese Americans has increased since 1960, a trend that shows no sign of slowing down. In this paper I will review three main positions regarding the issue of ways to approach the multiplying rate of obesity. First, there are those who advocate for the implementation of fat taxes. With the administration of taxes on unhealthy foods and drinks, this group believes that it will significantly discourage the consumption of such foods and will, in turn, promote healthy and responsible eating. Second, there are those who remain persistent in maintaining the privacy of one’s decision making concerning food intake. With the expansion of diverse kinds of food production, this group considers an individual’s food preference as unique, exclusive, and personal. Third, there are those who believe that lowering the costs of healthy foods will encourage the purchase of nourishing and health-benefiting foods. They embrace the belief that most people would eat healthier if the food was more affordable. The first position is the support of fat taxes. The people who stand in this position are those who are concerned with America’s public health issue today, especially the issues centering on obesity. Lisa Baertlin recently ublished an article on Reuters, an international news agency headquartered in the UK, entitled â€Å"Battle Lines Drawn over Soda, Junk Food Taxes† in response to the the wide-growing obesity epidemic today, with the proposition that fat taxes could help save individuals their health and money. She claims that taxes could help make up for the at least one hundred an d forty seven billion dollars spent on treating diseases related to obesity and fund programs that battle for this issue. According to U. S. lawmakers, soda tax is one of the most probable sources that would most likely be used to tackle healthcare reform. In relativity to the taxing of cigarettes, these people believe that by taxing soda, it would also similarly reduce consumption and its revenue stream; by taxing more than ten percent for beverages, purchases would be cut down by eight to ten percent. According to a recent Thomson Reuters survey included within Baertlin’s article, â€Å"about fifty-eight percent of Americans are willing to bear a tax increase of one percent or more to support healthcare reform† (Baertlin 1), which proves that more than half of American citizens are willing to take a step forward for the promotion of a healthy nation. Writers like Baertlin sympathize with those who are in the center of the public health crisis today, specifically â€Å"overweight adolescents who are starting to suffer problems that used to plague middle-aged adults† (1). Baertlin herself is in favor of administering fat taxes and is certain that levies on fattening foods are an essential factor of any anti-obesity endeavor. The food industry plays a large part in the causes of obesity. Most food companies are culpable of false advertisement, which swallows consumers into their too-good-to-be-true trends. Journalist Karlee Weinmann contributed a piece to Business Insider concerning food companies’ false advertisement. In the article â€Å"14 False Advertising Scandals That Cost Brands Millions†, Weinmann states that for companies that cross the line to making false claims, it can cost millions of dollars, while also having to face public negativity. However, even with all this said, will companies modify their marketing policies for the greater good, or will they uphold their profits as far more important than a consumer’s right to know the truth? More than likely, most brands will continue to false advertise their products, which is why these people in this group believe that fat taxes are efficient in lowering consumption of soda and other health-stripping foods. According to Weinmann, â€Å"there’s a big difference between pushing the truth and making false claims. Is a product really ‘scientifically proven’, and are ‘results guaranteed’? † (Weinmann 1). Food brands such as Activia yogurt, Splenda, Kashi, and Eclipse gum have been caught with such false advertisement scandals; the more unhealthy the food really is, the more beneficial its company would make it seem. Writers like Weinmann identify with those who have been misled by deceitful food claims made by the companies they trusted. Therefore, supporters of fat taxes are certain that the implementation of fat taxes would solve these complications by creating more awareness and heedfulness when consumers purchase junk foods. The second position is the promotion of health education and that one’s food choice should not be hindered or influenced to reduce obesity. The people who stand in this position believe that an individual should have choices in the items he or she buy, and be guilt-free. In the article â€Å"Childhood Obesity: A Global Public Health Issue† published in International Journal of Preventive Medicine†, writer Amar Kanekar states that the main cause of childhood obesity in today’s public health crisis in both developed and underdeveloped countries is because of the disproportion between the child’s caloric intake and the calories effectively used for growth/development and physical activities. To these people, what we eat is not the sole reason of the cause of obesity; genetic, behavioral, and environmental are all constituents of childhood obesity. Moreover, many health-related risks are present when a child is obese; negative body-image and low self-esteem inevitably result in psychological and social issues. Cardiovascular disease, increased cholesterol levels, and high blood pressure are all possible potential health risks involved and that there is, indeed, â€Å"preventive programs that help regulate obesity by educating individuals about healthy nutrition and diseases† (Kanekar 2). According to a report presented from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, in the years of 2007-2008, there was an estimation that â€Å"16. % of children and adolescent in the age group of 2-19 years were obese†¦The data collected for the same period shows that the adolescent (age group 12-19 years) obesity has increased from 5. 0 to 18. 1%† (2). By letting people know about health hazards and the importance of physical exercise, the chance of obesity could greatly decrease. Those who are pro-food-choice would si de with Kanekar in that they believe there should not be any direct government intervention with food costs, but that there should be a public informing of the effects commonly eaten unhealthy foods would result in. Kanekar, Baertlin, and Weinmann all believe that the prevalence of obesity seen in children and adults is increasing and that some form of action must be done. While these writers see and support the benefits of the reduction of junk food intake, Kanekar is more focused on declaring health education, with the hope of lowering BMI and the rate of weight gain. All three authors recognize the importance of lowering consumption of fatty foods, but the position here does not endorse the advocating of fat taxes. The third position is lowering the costs of healthy foods. The people who stand in this position believe that by decreasing the costs of healthful foods sold, there would be a habit shift in the people’s purchases of fatty foods to foods that are much more nutritional. Journalist Katherine Bauer published an article entitled â€Å"Price and Availability Matter† in Room for Debate, a running commentary by outside contributors from The New York Times, where she states the â€Å"lack of access to high quality, reasonably priced fruits and vegetables and other healthful foods has been associated with poorer diets and, in many cases, higher risk for obesity. This is especially true among lower-income individuals whose purchasing habits are more sensitive to the cost of food† (Bauer 1). There is strong evidence that shows a clear impact between change in food access and the pricing on one’s purchasing habits. For example, there are programs that decrease the cost of healthier foods, which resulted in the increased purchasing of the healthier foods. Cheaper prices on healthy foods reduce one’s weight, even if the cost of junk foods remains the same price. A news report conducted from the USDA observed the BMI of children and how it changed in correlation to food prices. It was shown that â€Å"if the price of 100% juice decreases 10%, BMIs decreased . 3%. The same process works for lowfat milk (. 35% decrease) and dark, leafy vegetables (. 28% decrease)† (2). Moreover, Bauer identifies with those who receive low-income and struggle with the purchase of healthy foods, and also with those who believe that it is not only the wealthy that ‘deserve’ the most benefits from the healthy aisles in the food market. Bauer’s views is relatively similar with Baertlin, Weinmann, and Kanekar, in that public attitudes towards obesity and obesity policy should be given much more ttention than it is now, but Bauer herself has a different approach in this matter, especially from Kanekar. She believes that health education may not be sufficient enough to cause a significant awareness in individuals that junk foods should no longer be habitually purchased. Instead, she considers the perspective that by lowering healthy foods, there would be an effective overall change in the nation’s weight and BMI and that the idea would more readily fit within one’s budget. Works Cited Page Baertlein, Lisa. â€Å"Battle lines drawn over soda, junk food taxes. † Reuters [Los Angeles] 1 Sept 2009, n. pag. Print. Katherine, Bauer. â€Å"Price and Availability Matter. † New York Times. (2011): 1-2. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. Kanekar, Amar. â€Å"Childhood Obesity: A Global Public Health Issue. † Int J Prev Med. (2011): 2. Web. 4 Apr. 2012. Weinmann, Karlee. â€Å"14 False Advertising Scandals That Cost Brands Millions. † Business Insider. (2011): 1-2. Web. 4 Apr. 2012. lt;www. businessinsider. comgt;. How to cite Mapping the Issue, Papers

Definitely One Of Most Important Factors †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Definitely One Of Most Important Factors? Answer: Introducation Any organization, that intends to sustain itself in the long run, must ensure that it adopts effective strategies that help it to sustain in the highly competitive market. In the face of cut-throat competition, many companies adopt the low-price strategy, whereby it lowers the price of its products, in order to gain competitive edge over its rivals. The assumption underlying the strategy, is lower the price, the higher will be the demand, and increased sales will eventually lead to increased rate of revenue. However, although the traditional theory of demand states that higher the price, lower accounting demand will be, and vice versa, it is important to critically analyse if lower price will invariably lead to higher profit or not. Price is definitely one of the most important factors, and one of the most vial elements of the 4Ps of marketing, that determine the sales growth of a product. Often companies believe in selling products at highly competitive prices, as it helps them tap the attention of the consumers much easily, and achieve consumer loyalty as well. This is why, many companies lower their prices, allow lucrative discount rates and follow a low-price strategy for each of its products. However, lower price does not necessarily imply higher profit margins. For example, an emerging organization that is still at its growth phase will have to incur various start-up costs that in turn will increase the total overhead cost (Tisdell 2015). In such a situation, if the company decides to reduce its selling price, it will definitely not be able to make profit, as its revenue will be low, while its expenditure will nevertheless be incredibly high. Hence, lower price will not ensure higher profit in all circumst ances. Low price strategy cannot be a long-term plan of any organization, as it does not ensure sustenance in the long run. However, often organizations enjoying a large share of the market, manage to survive with higher profit margins, when they choose to cut their product prices. These large and well-established organizations can effectively employ the low-price strategy, as they can easily survive on low profit margins for the time-being, and thus lowering the product price makes it even tougher for its competitors to compete if they cannot make a profit at those lower prices.Thus, often organizations often lower their prices with the purpose of attracting consumers for a brief period of time, and gaining consumer loyalty, after which it raises its prices, once its competitors are totally knocked out. This form of pricing strategy, also known as predatory pricing strategy can be highly an effective strategy that can be profitable for the recognized organizations to gain consumer loyalty, and attain competitive advantage (Kapur et al. 2016). As more consumers will be attracted to the low-priced products, they will tend to buy greater number of the products that is likely to enhance the sales volume as well, and contribute to the higher profit margins as well. There is no gain stating the obvious fact that often an increase in the price leads to the reduction of sales volume, as in a highly competitive market, the consumers will tend to look out for cheaper alternatives. On the other hand, despite the decrease in sales volumes, it may increase the profit margins, simply because the product sold to a limited consumer base, is sold at a higher cost, and the perceived value they attach to a high-priced product is irreplaceable. In order to illustrate the point, one can refer to the pricing strategy and profit margins of Apple and Samsung. Apple has always maintained a high price point strategy, whereby it does not reduce its price in order to attract consumer attention. On the other hand, economics, a strong rival of Apple, nevertheless offers a very similar feature-set and design flairs, and offers it at a lower price (Armstrong et al. 2015). Yet the profitability of Apple is unsurpassably high. The reason behind the high profitability of Ap ple, is the hype it creates amongst its consumers regarding the quality of its premium-priced products. While lowering the price can definitely increase the consumer demand for a brief period of time, most of the consumers will tend to devalue the quality of the brand. This perceived value of the brand will determine the sales growth in the long run. No matter what, but there will always be cheaper alternatives available in the market, and hence there is always a chance for the consumers to switch to the even cheaper product selling companies. The lower price strategy often affects the consumer brand perception in a negative way. Research reports have suggested that lower price is associated with lower perceived brand quality that affects the sales growth of the company, in the long run (Nagle et al. 2016). It in an undeniable fact, that a company that offers products at a lower price than before, will tend to compromise with the quality of the product (Natenberg 2014). It should be remembered that lower price does not essentially imply higher profit margin. On the contrary, it can ensure higher profitability, if and only the sales number remains constant. A company reducing its price by lowering the quality of its products, will not be able to sustain in a competitive market, and will be led to net loss. It is important to note that lowering the product price can definitely entail higher profit, for a short span of time. This is especially profitable for companies that are still in the introductory stage of product life cycle, or for companies trying to penetrate a new, competitive market. This pricing technique is known as penetration pricing strategy, whereby an organization sets a comparatively low initial entry price, that s most often lower than the eventual market price, in order to attract potential customer base. The strategy is implemented with the belief that the consumers will be tempted to switch to the new brand because of the lower price.However, in the long run, the company will have to increase its price, so that its brand value does not get misinterpreted by the consumers, and it can improve product quality in the coming years. It should be noted that even if a consumer is asked to buy the same product offered by three brands at $20, $50 and $500, people will not sim ply buy the first brand, but will rather carefully research the unique qualities offered by the most expensive brand. Hence, price determines the customers perception of a brand, and hence low price can affect sales in a negative way. Hence, the company can offer high quality products, and employ a premium pricing strategy, to attain product differentiation, and still make huge profits. The key to success is just to prove to the consumers that the product quality justifies a premium price. Reference List: Armstrong, G., Kotler, P., Harker, M. and Brennan, R., 2015. Marketing: an introduction. Pearson Education. Kapur, P.K., Kumar, V. and Shrivastava, A.K., 2016. Strategic Price, Warranty and Profit Maximization Model of a Software Product Using Dynamic Optimization.International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering,23(01), p.1650002. McDonald, M. and Wilson, H., 2016.Marketing Plans: How to prepare them, how to profit from them. John Wiley Sons. Nagle, T.T., Hogan, J. and Zale, J., 2016.The Strategy management and Tactics of Pricing: New International Edition. Routledge. Natenberg, S., 2014.Option volatility and pricing: Advanced trading strategies and techniques. McGraw Hill Professional. Tisdell, C.A., 2015.The theory of price uncertainty, production, and profit. Princeton University Press.