To model theft correctly, you would need to take into account the probability and effect of being caught. If we're talking about serious crime, then you might get 4 times the amount of time you spent stealing in jail. If you consider your chances of getting caught to be 50%, then this can be modelled as 2 times the amount.
So for theft to be profitable, you would need to earn three times the amount you would have earned from working. A minimum wage employee will make $14,000 anually, so you would need to steal $42,000 in a year.
That's highly unlikely to happen, so no, theft is not rational. Not in the slightest, if your interest is income.
No, it is rational.
It is rational. It is rational. It is rational. It is rational.
"Rational" is an adjective and so there cannot be "a rational" (and certainly not "an rational"). Any answer would depend on whether the question was about a rational number, a rational person, a rational argument or "a rational" combined with some other noun.
It is rational.
It is rational.
Rational
1.14 is rational.
The number -3 is a rational number. A rational number is any number that can be expressed as a fraction where the numerator and denominator are integers and the denominator is not zero. In this case, -3 can be expressed as the fraction -3/1. Since -3 can be expressed as a ratio of two integers, it is considered a rational number.
rational
4.6 is rational.
No, it is rational.
It is a rational number
It is rational. It is rational. It is rational. It is rational.
Rational.
No, it is rational.
It is rational
0.38 is a rational number because it can be expressed as a fraction