Question Details

(solution) BUSINESS STRATEGY & POLICY 4~5 pages research paper. (APA


BUSINESS STRATEGY & POLICY


4~5 pages research paper. (APA references.)


Outline:


7 external factors

political/legal/regulatory

social

demographics.

technological

general economic conditions

global forces.

natural environment.


Opportunities.

dominant economic features


industry analysis

structure


Driving forces


Key success factors


Porter's 5 forces of competition

1. The Rivalry among competing sellers in the Industry

2. Potential entry of new competitors

3. Analyzing the affect of substitute products

4. Bargaining power of suppliers

5. Bargaining power of sellers


Competition in the Bottled

 

Water Industry

 

John E. Gamble

 

University of South Alabama BOTTLED water was among the world's most attractive beverage categories

 

with global sales in 2001 exceeding 32 billion gallons and annual growth

 

averaging nearly 9 percent between 1996 and 2001. Bottled water had long been a

 

widely consumed product in Western Europe and Mexico, where annual per capita

 

consumption averaged about 30 gallons in 2001, but until the mid-1990s bottled water

 

had been somewhat of a novelty or prestige product in the United States. In 1990

 

approximately 2.2 billion gallons of bottled water were consumed in the United States

 

and per capita consumption approximated 9 gallons. U.S. per capita consumption had

 

grown to nearly 20 gallons a year by 2001 and was expected to grow to 26 gallons

 

a year by 2005. The rising popularity of bottled water in the United States during

 

the 1990s allowed the United States to become the world's largest market for bottled

 

water by 1996 (see Exhibit 1).

 

Exhibit 1 2001 Rank

 

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 

8

 

9

 

10 LEADING COUNTRY MARKETS FOR BOTTLED WATER, 1996,

 

2001 (IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS) Country

 

United States

 

Mexico

 

Italy

 

Germany

 

France

 

China

 

Indonesia

 

Thailand

 

Brazil

 

Spain All others

 

Worldwide total CAGR* (19962001)

 

9.2% 1 996

 

3,495.1 2O01

 

5,425.3 2,674.2

 

1,923.9

 

2,097.6

 

1,498.9

 

565.0

 

512.1

 

854.5 3,496.5 5.5 2,502.6 5.4 2,336.5 2.2 1,198.3 7.0 475.7 1,139.6 19.1 2,064.6 6.6 2,007.8 28.9 1,352.1 21.4 884.0 1,091.4 4.3 4,205.4 7,488.4 12.2 21,182.4 32,104.1 *Compound average growth rate.

 

Source: Beverage Marketing Corporation, as reported by Bottled Water Reporter, April-May 2002. Copyright © 2002 by John E. Gamble. All rights reserved. 8.7% The growing popularity of bottled water in the United States was attributable to

 

concerns over the safety of municipal drinking water, an increased focus on fitness and

 

health, and the hectic on-the-go lifestyles of American consumers. The convenience,

 

purity, and portability of bottled water made it the natural solution to consumers' dis satisfaction with tap water. The U.S. bottled water market, like most markets outside

 

the United States, was characterized by fierce competitive rivalry as the world's bot tled water sellers jockeyed for market share and volume gains. Both the global and

 

U.S. bottled water markets had become dominated by a few international food and

 

beverage producers like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle, and Groupe Danone, but they

 

also included many small regional sellers that were required to develop either low-cost

 

production and distribution capabilities or differentiation strategies keyed to some

 

unique product attributes. At the close of 2002, industry rivals were entering new distribution channels, developing innovative product variations, entering into strategic

 

agreements to penetrate new international markets, and acquiring smaller sellers that

 

might hold strong positions in certain U.S. regional markets or emerging markets. In dustry analysts and observers believed the recent moves undertaken by the world's

 

largest sellers of bottled water would alter the competitive dynamics of the bottled water

 

industry and mandate that certain players modify their current strategic approaches to

 

competition in the industry. Exhibit 2

 

PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF BOTTLED WATER BY

 

COUNTRY MARKET, 1996, 2001 Per Capita

 

Consumption

 

(in gallons)

 

20O1

 

Rank

 

1 Country

 

Italy 1996

 

33.5 2OO1

 

43.4 Compound

 

Average

 

Growth

 

Rate

 

5.3% 25.7

 

28.1 34.7

 

34.3 6.2

 

4.1 4 Belgium-Luxembourg 28.8 32.6 2.5 5

 

6 United Arab Emirates

 

Germany 25.7

 

25.6 31.3

 

28.1 4.0

 

1.9 7 Spain 22.3 27.3 4.1 8

 

9 Switzerland

 

Lebanon 21.1

 

12.7 23.8

 

22.5 2.4

 

12.1 10 Saudi Arabia 15.1 22.5 Austria 18.5 20.5 2.1 12 Even though it was the world's largest market for bottled water, the United States re mained among the faster-growing markets for bottled water since per capita consump tion of bottled water fell substantially below consumption rates in Western Europe, the

 

Middle East, and Mexico. Bottled water consumption in the United States also lagged

 

per capita consumption of soft drinks by a wide margin. However, many U.S. con sumers were making a transition from soft drinks to bottled water as the soft-drink

 

market had grown by less than 1 percent annually between 1996 and 2001 and the

 

market for bottled water had continued to grow at annual rates near 10 percent during

 

the same time period. By 2002, 70 percent of U.S. households purchased bottled water

 

at least once a year and the average water-buying household purchased 22 twelveounce bottles a year. Exhibits 2 through 5 illustrate the growing popularity of bottled

 

water among U.S. consumers during the 1990s and through 2001.

 

Almost one-half of bottled water consumed in the United States in 1990 was bulk

 

water delivered to homes and offices in returnable five-gallon containers and dis pensed through coolers. Only 186 million gallons of water were sold in one-liter or

 

smaller single-serving polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. In 2002, bottled water

 

sold in one-liter or smaller PET containers accounted for 36.2 percent of industry vol ume and 50.8 percent of dollar sales and had grown by 29.1 percent annually between

 

1995 and 2001. The sales of bulk water sold in 5-gallon containers or 1- or 2.5-gallon

 

high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers accounted for 60.9 percent of gallonage

 

but only 43.3 percent of dollar sales. Convenience was the primary appeal of smaller,

 

single-serving PET containers since consumers could purchase chilled water they

 

could drink immediately. Water purchased for immediate consumption grew from

 

8.3 percent of industry sales volume in 1990 to 16.7 percent of sales volume in 2000.

 

Portability also partly explained the appeal of water bottled in PET containers since the

 

small plastic bottles were easier to carry than glasses or cups of tap water. In 2001,

 

consumers began to prefer PET containers not only for immediate consumption but France

 

Mexico 11 | Industry Conditions in 20O2 2

 

3 Cyprus 14.2 20.2 7.3 13 Czech Republic 12.9 19.6 8.7 14 United States 13.1 19.5 8.3 Thailand 14.5 19.4 6.0 3.3 4.9 8.2% 15 Global

 

average O *3 Source: Beverage Marketing Corporation, as reported by Bottled Water Reporter, April-May 2002. Exhibit 3 U.S. P ER C APIT A BEVER AG E CONSU MPTI ON,

 

1 9 96 AND 2 0 0 1 Beverage

 

Soft drinks G al lon s p e r

 

P e rs o n

 

1 99 6

 

53.4 G a ll on s p e r

 

P e r s o n 2 0 01

 

55.3 Compound

 

Average

 

Grow th

 

Rate

 

0.7% Coffee Bottled 22.3 21.9 - 0.4 water*

 

Milk Fruit 13.0

 

24.2 19.9

 

19.9 * 8.9

 

-3.8 beverages 15.0 15.5 0.7 9.7 9.3 -0.8 1.9

 

29.3 2.0

 

23.5 1.0

 

-4.3 23.2 24.5

 

191.8 1.1 Tea

 

Wine

 

Beer and spirits Tap

 

water/all other Total 192.0

 

*Note: The per capita consumption of bottled water as presented by Prepared by

 

Beverage Marketing Corporation presented in Exhibits 2 Source: Beverage Aisle,

 

August 15, 2002.

 

I Beverage Aisle varies slightly from the calculations

 

and 5. Exhibit 4 VOLUME SALES AND DOLLAR VALUE OF THE U.S. BOTTLED WATER MARKET,

 

1991-2OO1 1991 V olu m e S ale s ( in

 

m illions of gallons)

 

2,355.9 1992 2,486.6 5.5 2,658.7 1993 2,689.4 8.2 2,876.7 8.2 1994 2,966.4 10.3 3,164.3 10.0 1995 3,226.9 8.8 3,521.9 11.3 1996 3,495.1 8.3 3,835.4 8.9 1997 3,794.3 8.6 4,222.7 10.1 Year Annual

 

C ha n ge

 

2.1% I ndu stry Rev en u es

 

( in m illions of d ollars)

 

$2,512.9 An nua l

 

C h ang e

 

-0.6%

 

5.8 1998 4,130.7 8.9 4,666.1 10.5 1999 4,583.4 11.0 5,314.7 13.9 2000 4,904.4 7.0 5,809.0 9.3 2001 5,425.3 10.6 6,477.0 11.5 S ource: B everage Marketing Corporation, as reported by B ottled Water Reporter, A pril-May 2002. Exhibit 5 Year

 

1991 U.S. PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF BOTTLED WATER,

 

1991-2OO1

 

P e r C a p it a C o n s u m p t i o n

 

( in gallons)

 

9.3 An nu al Chang e

 

? 1992 9.8 1993 10.5 7.1 1994 11.5 9.5 1995 12.2 6.1 1996 13.1 7.4 1997 14.1 7.6 1998 15.3 8.5 1999 16.8 9.8 2000 17.8 6.0 2001 19.5 9.6 Source: Beverage Marketing Corporation, as reported by Bottled Water Reporter, April-May 2002. also for home use as the take-home PET market for the first time exceeded the volume

 

sales of chilled PET water sold for immediate consumption. Water packaged in PET

 

containers sold through take-home channels accounted for 28 percent of industry sales

 

volume in 2001 and was expected to account for more than one-half of industry growth

 

between 2002 and 2007.

 

The convenience and portability of bottled water were two of a variety of reasons

 

U.S. consumers were increasingly attracted to bottled water. An increased emphasis on

 

healthy lifestyles and improved consumer awareness of the need for proper hydration

 

led many consumers to shift traditional beverage preferences toward bottled water.

 

Bottled water consumers frequently claimed drinking more water improved the appearance of their skin and gave them more energy. Bottled water analysts also be lieved many health-conscious consumers drank bottled water because it was a symbol

 

to others that they were interested in health.

 

A certain amount of industry growth was attributable to increased concerns over

 

the quality of tap water provided by municipal water sources. Consumers in parts of

 

the world with inadequate water treatment facilities relied on bottled water to provide

 

daily hydration needs, but tap water in the United States was very pure by global standards. Municipal water systems were regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection

 

Agency (EPA) and were required to comply with the provisions of the Safe Drinking

 

Water Act Amendments of 2001. Consumer concerns over the quality of drinking water in the U.S. emerged in 1993 when 400,000 residents of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, became ill with flulike symptoms and almost 100 immune impaired residents died from

 

waterborne bacterial infections. Throughout the 1990s and into the early 2000s, the

 

media sporadically reported cases of municipal water contamination, such as in 2000

 

when residents of Washington, D.C., became ill after the city's water filtration process

 

caused elevated levels of suspended materials in the water. Consumer attention to the

 

purity of municipal water was also heightened in 2000 when the EPA proposed revis ing the standard for arsenic content in tap water as specified by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb. Prior to the

 

congressional discussion of acceptable arsenic levels in drinking water, most Ameri cans were unaware that any arsenic was present in tap water.

 

Even though some consumers were concerned about the purity of municipal wa ter, most consumers' complaints with tap water centered on its chemical taste, which

 

resulted from treatment processes that included the use of chlorine and other chemicals

 

such as fluoride. In a tap water tasting in Atlanta hosted by Southpoint magazine,

 

judges rated municipal water on taste and found some cities' waters very palatable.

 

Water obtained from the municipal source in Memphis was said to have "a refreshing

 

texture" and tap water from New Orleans was commended for "its neutrality." How ever, other municipal systems did not fare as well with the judges?some of whom

 

suggested Houston's water tasted "like a chemistry lab," while others said Atlanta's

 

municipal water was akin to "a gulp of swimming pool water." 1 However, there were

 

positive attributes to the chemicals added to tap water, as chlorine was necessary to kill

 

any bacteria in the water and fluoride had contributed greatly to improved dental health

 

in the United States. In addition, tap water had been shown to be no less healthy than

 

bottled water in a number of independent studies, including a study publicized in Eu rope that was commissioned by the World Wide Fund for Nature and conducted by re searchers at the University of Geneva.

 

Bottled water producers in the United States were required to meet the standards

 

of both the EPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Like all food and

 

beverage products sold in the United States, bottled water was subject to such food

 

safety and labeling requirements as nutritional labeling provisions and general Good

 

Manufacturing Practices (GMPs). Bottled water GMPs were mandated under the 1962

 

Kefauver-Harris drug amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of

 

1938 and established specifications for plant construction and design, sanitation,

 

equipment design and construction, production and process controls, and record keepln

 

g. The FDA required bottled water producers to test for the presence of bacteria at

 

least weekly and to test for inorganic contaminants, trace metals, minerals, pesticides,

 

herbicides, and organic compounds annually. Bottled water was also regulated by state

 

agencies that conducted inspections of bottling facilities and certification of testing fa cilities to ensure bottled water was bottled under federal GMPs and was safe to drink. Bottled water producers were also required to comply with the FDA's Standard of

 

Identity, which required bottlers to include source water information on their products'

 

labels. Water labeled as "spring water" must have been captured from a borehole or

 

natural orifice of a spring that naturally flows to the surface. "Artesian water" could be

 

extracted from a confined aquifer (a water-bearing underground layer of rock or sand)

 

where the water level stood above the top of the aquifer. "Sparkling water" was re quired to have natural carbonation as it emerged from the source, although carbonation

 

could be added to return the carbon dioxide level to what was evident as the water

 

emerged from the source. Even though sparkling water was very popular throughout

 

most of Europe and the Middle East, it accounted for only 9 percent of U.S. bottled

 

water sales in 2001.

 

The FDA's definition of "mineral water" stated that such water must have at least

 

250 parts per million of total dissolved solids and its standards required water labeled

 

as "purified" have undergone distillation, deionization, or reverse osmosis to remove

 

chemicals such as chlorine and fluoride. "Drinking water" required no additional pro cessing beyond what was required for tap water but could not include flavoring or

 

other additives that account for more than 1 percent of the product's total weight. Both

 

"drinking water" and "purified water" had to clearly state that the water originated

 

"from a community water system" or "from a municipal source."

 

Bottled water producers could also voluntarily become members of the Interna tional Bottled Water Association (IBWA) and agree to comply with its Model Code,

 

which went beyond the standards of the EPA, FDA, or state agencies. The Model Code

 

allowed fewer parts per million of certain organic and inorganic chemicals and micro biological contaminants than FDA, EPA, or state regulations and imposed a chlorine

 

limitation on bottled water. Neither the FDA nor the EPA limited chlorine content.

 

IBWA members were monitored for compliance through annual, unannounced inspec tions administered by an independent third-party organization. Distribution and Sale of Bottled Water

 

Consumers could purchase bottled water in nearly any location in the United States

 

where food was also sold. Supermarkets, supercenters, and wholesale clubs all stocked

 

large inventories of bottled water, and most convenience stores dedicated at least one

 

stand-up cooler to bottled water. Bottled water could also be purchased in most delis

 

and many restaurants; from vending machines; and at sporting events and other special

 

events like concerts, outdoor festivals, and carnivals. Bottled water could also be de livered directly to consumers' homes or offices.

 

The distribution of bottled water varied depending on the producer and the distribution channel. Typically, bottled water was distributed to large grocers and whole sale clubs directly by the bottled water producer, while most producers used third

 

parties like beer and wine distributors or food distributors to make sales and deliveries

 

to convenience-store buyers. Similarly, food-service distributors usually handled land ing accounts with restaurants and delis and making necessary deliveries to keep the

 

account properly stocked. Most distributors made deliveries of bottled water to convenience stores and restaurants along with their regular scheduled deliveries of other foods

 

and beverages. Therefore, these third-party food and beverage distributors almost never

 

made deliveries to one-time or infrequent events like art festivals or sporting events,

 

since they were better equipped to represent a variety of food and beverage companies

 

that wanted their products available for sale in locations where consumers made fre quent food and beverage purchases. Similarly, vending machine servicing did not match

 

the resources and competitive capabilities of most food and beverage distributors. Because of the difficulty for food-service distributors to restock vending machines

 

and provide bottled water to special events, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo were able to dom inate such channels since they could make deliveries of bottled water along with their

 

deliveries of other beverages. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo's vast beverage distribution sys tems made it easy for the two companies to make Dasani and Aquafma available any where Coke or Pepsi could be purchased. In addition, the two cola giants almost

 

always negotiated contracts with sports stadiums, universities, and school systems that

 

made one of them the exclusive supplier of all types of non-alcoholic beverages sold

 

in the venue for some period of time. Under such circumstances, it was nearly impos sible for other brands of bottled water to gain access to the account.

 

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo's soft-drink businesses also aided the two companies in

 

making Aquafma and Dasani available in supermarkets, supercenters, wholesale clubs,

 

and convenience stores. Soft-drink sales were important to all types of food stores

 

since soft drinks made up a sizable percentage of sales and since food retailers fre quently relied on soft-drink promotions to generate store traffic. Coca-Cola and Pep siCo were able to encourage their customers to purchase items across their product line

 

to ensure prompt and complete shipment of key soft-drink products. As a diversified

 

food products company, PepsiCo had exploited the popularity of its soft drinks,

 

Gatorade sports drinks, Frito-Lay snack foods, and Tropicana orange juice in persuad ing grocery accounts to purchase not only Aquafina but also other new brands such as

 

FruitWorks, SoBe, Lipton's iced tea, and Starbucks Frappuccino.

 

Since most supermarkets, supercenters, and food stores usually carried only three

 

to five branded bottled waters plus a private-label brand, bottled water producers other

 

than Coke and Pepsi were required to compete aggressively on price to gain access to

 

shelf space. Market surveys indicated that wholesale prices for branded bottled water

 

ranged between $3.50 and $7.00 per case?depending on the appeal of the product and

 

the competitive strength of the seller. Some supermarkets and other grocery chains required bottled water suppliers to pay slotting fees in addition to offering low prices to

 

gain shelf space. Grocers expected to pay less for private-label products and typically

 

required private-label suppliers to prepare bids offering both purified and spring water

 

in packaging of various sizes. Contracts were awarded to the low bidder and typically

 

re-bid on an annual or biannual basis.

 

Convenience-store buyers also aggressively pressed bottled water producers and

 

food distributors for low prices and slotting fees. Most convenience stores carried only

 

two to four brands of bottled water beyond what was distributed by Coca-Cola and

 

Pepsi and required bottlers to pay annual slotting fees of $300 to $400 per store in re turn for providing 5 to 10 bottle facings on a cooler shelf. Even though bottled water

 

producers were responsible for paying slotting fees to gain shelf space, food-service

 

distributors handled sales transactions with convenience stores and made all deliveries.

 

Food and beverage distributors usually paid the bottlers of lesser-known brands $3.75

 

to $4.25 per case, while popular national brands commanded wholesale prices in the

 

$5.00-$6.00 range. Typically, a distributor would represent only one or two bottled

 

water producers and required producers to make deliveries to their warehouses. Some

 

bottlers offered to provide retailers with rebates of approximately 25 cents per case to

 

help secure distributors for their brand. Food distributors also asked bottled water supPliers to sponsor annual trade shows at which participating vendors (including bottled

 

water producers) would offer discounts of approximately 25 cents per case to conve nience-store customers willing to commit to large quarterly purchases. Food and beverage distributors usually allowed bottled water producers to negotiate slotting fees

 

and rebates directly with convenience-store buyers. There was not as much competition among bottled water producers to gain shelf

 

space in delis and restaurants since volume was relatively low?making per unit dis tribution costs exceedingly high unless other beverages were delivered along with bot tled water. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola were among the better-suited bottled water

 

producers to economically distribute water to restaurants since they likely provided

 

fountain drinks to such establishments.

 

Bulk water sold in returnable five-gallon containers was delivered to home and of fice users directly by bottled water producers. These producers usually specialized in

 

home and office delivery, but might also sell a PET product through convenience and

 

supermarket channels. Retail pricing to bulk water purchasers ranged between $5 and

 

$7 per five-gallon container. Consumers of bulk water were also required to rent a

 

cooler at $10 to $15 per month. Most bulk water sellers used a delivery route system

 

with scheduled visits for deliveries of water and empty container pickup. Suppliers to the Industry

 

The suppliers to the bottled water industry included municipal water systems; spring

 

operators; bottling equipment manufacturers; deionization, reverse osmosis, and filtra tion equipment manufacturers; cooler manufacturers; sellers of racking systems; man ufacturers of PET and HDPE bottles and plastic caps; label printers; and secondary

 

packaging suppliers. Most packaging supplies needed for the production of bottled wa ter were readily available for a large number of suppliers. Large bottlers able to com mit to annual purchases of more than 5 million PET bottles could purchase bottles for

 

as little as $0.05 per bottle, while regional bottlers purchasing smaller quantities of

 

bottles or only making one-time purchases of bottles could expect to pay as much as

 

$0.15 per bottle. Most PET and HDPE bottle producers preferred to reward customers

 

choosing to develop ongoing relationships with their lowest prices. Suppliers of sec ondary packaging (e.g., cardboard boxes, shrink-wrap, and six-pack rings) and suppliers of printed film or paper labels were numerous and aggressively competed for the

 

business of large bottled water producers.

 

Equipment used for water purification and filling bottles was manufactured

 

and marketed by about 50 different companies in the United States. About 10 manu facturers offered a complete line of filling equipment, filtration equipment, distillation

 

equipment, deionization equipment, bottle washers, labeling equipment, packaging

 

equipment, and reverse osmosis equipment, with others specializing in a few equip ment categories. A basic bottle-filling line could be purchased for about $125,000,

 

while a large state-of-the-art bottling facility could require a capital investment of more

 

than $100 million. Bottlers choosing to sell spring water could expect to invest about

 

$300,000 for source certification, road grading, and installation of pumping equip ment, fencing, holding tanks, and disinfecting equipment. Bottlers that did not own

 

springs were also required to enter into lease agreements with spring owners that typ ically ranged from $20,000 to $30,000 a year. Companies selling purified water merely

 

purchased tap water from municipal water systems at industrial rates prior to purifying

 

and bottling the water for sale to consumers. Sellers of purified water were able not

 

only to pay less for water they bottled, but also to avoid spring water's inbound ship ping costs of $0.05 to $0.15 per gallon since water arrived at the bottling facility by

 

pipe rather than by truck. Key Competitive Capabilities in the Bottled

 

Water Industry

 

Bottled water did not enjoy the brand loyalty of soft drinks, beer, or many other food

 

and beverage products, but it was experiencing some increased brand loyalty with

 

10-25 percent of consumers looking for a specific brand and an additional two-thirds

 

considering only a few brands acceptable. Because of the gr...

 


Solution details:
STATUS
Answered
QUALITY
Approved
ANSWER RATING

This question was answered on: Jan 30, 2021

PRICE: $15

Solution~0001017843.zip (25.37 KB)

Buy this answer for only: $15

This attachment is locked

We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free solution (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .
SiteLock

About this Question

STATUS

Answered

QUALITY

Approved

DATE ANSWERED

Jan 30, 2021

EXPERT

Tutor

ANSWER RATING

GET INSTANT HELP/h4>

We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.

You can also use these solutions:

  • As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
  • As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
  • For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student.

NEW ASSIGNMENT HELP?

Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround

Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.

WE GUARANTEE, THAT YOUR PAPER WILL BE WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH AND WITHIN A DEADLINE.

Order Now