Math 135: Answers to Practice Problems

Similar documents
Chapter 10: Mixed strategies Nash equilibria, reaction curves and the equality of payoffs theorem

Strategy -1- Strategy

SI 563 Homework 3 Oct 5, Determine the set of rationalizable strategies for each of the following games. a) X Y X Y Z

Finding Mixed-strategy Nash Equilibria in 2 2 Games ÙÛ

AS/ECON 2350 S2 N Answers to Mid term Exam July time : 1 hour. Do all 4 questions. All count equally.

S 2,2-1, x c C x r, 1 0,0

Test 1. ECON3161, Game Theory. Tuesday, September 25 th

The Ohio State University Department of Economics Econ 601 Prof. James Peck Extra Practice Problems Answers (for final)

When one firm considers changing its price or output level, it must make assumptions about the reactions of its rivals.

Econ 172A, W2002: Final Examination, Solutions

Microeconomics II. CIDE, MsC Economics. List of Problems

MAT 4250: Lecture 1 Eric Chung

Final Examination CS540: Introduction to Artificial Intelligence

Game Theory. VK Room: M1.30 Last updated: October 22, 2012.

Econ 711 Homework 1 Solutions

B w x y z a 4,4 3,3 5,1 2,2 b 3,6 2,5 6,-3 1,4 A c -2,0 2,-1 0,0 2,1 d 1,4 1,2 1,1 3,5

Suggested Solutions to Assignment 2 (Optional)

Solution to Tutorial 1

Solution to Tutorial /2013 Semester I MA4264 Game Theory

Problem Set 2 - SOLUTIONS

Expectations & Randomization Normal Form Games Dominance Iterated Dominance. Normal Form Games & Dominance

Game Theory Notes: Examples of Games with Dominant Strategy Equilibrium or Nash Equilibrium

CSE 316A: Homework 5

ECE 586GT: Problem Set 1: Problems and Solutions Analysis of static games

(a) Describe the game in plain english and find its equivalent strategic form.

Section Strictly Determined Games, Dominated Rows, Saddle Points

Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2017

Now we return to simultaneous-move games. We resolve the issue of non-existence of Nash equilibrium. in pure strategies through intentional mixing.

Introduction to Industrial Organization Professor: Caixia Shen Fall 2014 Lecture Note 5 Games and Strategy (Ch. 4)

The Ohio State University Department of Economics Second Midterm Examination Answers

The Nash equilibrium of the stage game is (D, R), giving payoffs (0, 0). Consider the trigger strategies:

Final Examination December 14, Economics 5010 AF3.0 : Applied Microeconomics. time=2.5 hours

EC 308 Question Set # 1

Iterated Dominance and Nash Equilibrium

Solutions to Homework 3

The Normal Probability Distribution

Problem Set 2 Answers

Economics 171: Final Exam

Economics 109 Practice Problems 1, Vincent Crawford, Spring 2002

Bayesian Nash Equilibrium

Game Theory. Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari. Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 2012

Using the Maximin Principle

Symmetric Game. In animal behaviour a typical realization involves two parents balancing their individual investment in the common

Version 01 as of May 12, 2014 Author: Steven Sagona To be submitted to PRL (not really)

Chapter 33: Public Goods

MIDTERM ANSWER KEY GAME THEORY, ECON 395

Can we have no Nash Equilibria? Can you have more than one Nash Equilibrium? CS 430: Artificial Intelligence Game Theory II (Nash Equilibria)

Sequential-move games with Nature s moves.

Exercises Solutions: Game Theory

Replicator Dynamics 1

MATH 121 GAME THEORY REVIEW

Elements of Economic Analysis II Lecture X: Introduction to Game Theory

Mixed Strategies. Samuel Alizon and Daniel Cownden February 4, 2009

Game Theory Problem Set 4 Solutions

MATH 4321 Game Theory Solution to Homework Two

ECE 586BH: Problem Set 5: Problems and Solutions Multistage games, including repeated games, with observed moves

Game theory and applications: Lecture 1

Mixed Strategy Nash Equilibrium. player 2

Unit 3: Writing Equations Chapter Review

Noncooperative Market Games in Normal Form

ECO303: Intermediate Microeconomic Theory Benjamin Balak, Spring 2008

CS 798: Homework Assignment 4 (Game Theory)

Static Games and Cournot. Competition

ECON/MGMT 115. Industrial Organization

These notes essentially correspond to chapter 13 of the text.

Econ 101A Final exam May 14, 2013.

Francesco Nava Microeconomic Principles II EC202 Lent Term 2010

Yao s Minimax Principle

Game Theory and Economics Prof. Dr. Debarshi Das Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati.

MA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE

Their opponent will play intelligently and wishes to maximize their own payoff.

ECO 5341 (Section 2) Spring 2016 Midterm March 24th 2016 Total Points: 100

TEACHING STICKY PRICES TO UNDERGRADUATES

Optimal Voting Rules. Alexander Scheer. November 14, 2012

Advanced Microeconomic Theory EC104

ECO410H: Practice Questions 2 SOLUTIONS

M.Phil. Game theory: Problem set II. These problems are designed for discussions in the classes of Week 8 of Michaelmas term. 1

MIDTERM 1 SOLUTIONS 10/16/2008

Stat 155 Lecture Notes

TUFTS UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ES 152 ENGINEERING SYSTEMS Spring Lesson 16 Introduction to Game Theory

CMPSCI 240: Reasoning about Uncertainty

Problem 3,a. ds 1 (s 2 ) ds 2 < 0. = (1+t)

EC 202. Lecture notes 14 Oligopoly I. George Symeonidis

Introduction to Multi-Agent Programming

d. Find a competitive equilibrium for this economy. Is the allocation Pareto efficient? Are there any other competitive equilibrium allocations?

15.053/8 February 28, person 0-sum (or constant sum) game theory

(Refer Slide Time: 00:55)

ANSWER: We can find consumption and saving by solving:

Economics 502 April 3, 2008

Ph.D. MICROECONOMICS CORE EXAM August 2018

CMSC 474, Introduction to Game Theory 20. Shapley Values

CS711 Game Theory and Mechanism Design

Jianfei Shen. School of Economics, The University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia

ECON Spring Final suggested answers

Honors General Exam PART 1: MICROECONOMICS. Solutions. Harvard University April 2013

Math 234 Spring 2013 Exam 1 Version 1 Solutions

Microeconomics of Banking: Lecture 5

Evolutionary voting games. Master s thesis in Complex Adaptive Systems CARL FREDRIKSSON

Exercises Solutions: Oligopoly

Prisoner s dilemma with T = 1

Transcription:

Math 35: Answers to Practice Problems Answers to problems from the textbook: Many of the problems from the textbook have answers in the back of the book. Here are the answers to the problems that don t have answers in the back of the book..2.2. (f) No, it is not a Nash equilibrium. To see this, we start by assuming that uses the strategy A + B + C + D, and we determine s best response to this strategy. If chooses A, s expected value is: (3)+ ()+ ( 2)+ ( 3) = If chooses B, s expected value is: ( 5)+ ( 3)+ (2)+ (6) = 0 Thus, s best response is B. Thus, would not use the strategy 2 A+ 2 B, so it is not a Nash equilibrium. (g) No, it is not a Nash equilibrium for the same reason as (f). If uses the strategy A + B + C + D, s best response is B, not 5A + 3B. (h) No, it is not a Nash equilibrium. To see this, we start by assuming that uses the strategy A + B, and we determine s best response to this strategy. If chooses A, s expected value is: ( 3) + (5) = If chooses B, s expected value is ( ) + (3) = If chooses C, s expected value is (2) + ( 2) = 0 If chooses D, s expected value is (3) + ( 6) = 3/2 Thus, s best response is A or B, or any combination of A and B. Thus, would not use the strategy B + C, so it is not a Nash equilibrium. (i) Yes, it is a Nash equilibrium. To see this, we start by assuming that uses the strategy B + C, and we determine s best response to this strategy: If chooses A, s expected value is: () + ( 2) = /2 If chooses B, s expected value is: ( 3) + (2) = /2 Thus, s best response is A or B, or any combination of A and B. In particular, 5A + 3 B is a best response. Now, we assume that uses the strategy 5A + 3 B, and we determine s best response to this strategy: If chooses A, s expected value is: 5( 3) + 3(5) = 0 If chooses B, s expected value is: 5( ) + 3 (3) = / If chooses C, s expected value is: 5(2) + 3 ( 2) = / If chooses D, s expected value is: 5(3) + 3 ( 6) = 3/ Thus, s best response is B or C, or any combination of B and C. In particular, B + C is a best response. Since both strategies are a best response to the other s strategy, there is no incentive for either player to switch strategies, so it is a Nash equilibrium.

.3.0. Row B dominates Row A, Row C dominates Row D, and Column A dominates Column D, so we can eliminate Row A, Row D, and Column D. Once we eliminate those rows and columns, Column A dominates Column B, so we can eliminate Column B. This leaves us with the following matrix: A C B (2, ) (6, 0) C (0, 0) (0, 3) Now, we try to find pure strategy Nash equilibria by creating the best response diagram: A C B 2, 6, 0 C 0, 0 0, 3 As we can see from the best response diagram, there are no pure strategy Nash equilibria. Now, we try to find mixed strategy Nash equilibria. Suppose that uses the mixed strategy ( p)b + pc. Then, s expected payoffs are: If chooses A, s expected value is: ( p)( ) + p(0) = + p If chooses C, s expected value is: ( p)(0) + p( 3) = 3p We set these equal: + p = 3p Solving, we get that p = /. Thus, if uses the strategy 3B + C, will be indifferent between A and C (so that any mixed strategy involving A and C will be a best response for ). Now, suppose that uses the mixed strategy ( p)a+pc. Then, s expected payoff are: If chooses B, s expected value is: ( p)(2) + p(6) = 2 6p If chooses C, s expected value is: ( p)(0) + p(0) = 0 We set these equal: 2 6p = 0 Solving, we get that p = /3. Thus, if uses the strategy 2A + C, will be 3 3 indifferent between B and C (so that any mixed strategy involving B and C will be a best response for ). Thus, this game has one Nash equilibrium. It is ( 3 B + C, 2 3 A + 3 C). 2

7.3.2. (a) We create a table with all possible orderings of A, B, and C, and showing the marginal contributions of each of A, B, and C in the given order: Order A B C ABC 0 90 0 ACB 0 0 90 BAC 90 0 0 BCA 90 0 0 CAB 90 0 0 CBA 90 0 0 The average for A is 360/6 = 60, the average for B is 90/6 = 5, and the average for C is 90/6 = 5. Thus the Shapley allocation is: A B C 60 5 5 Answers to problems not from the textbook:. (a) The first player has the winning strategy, because when we write the numbers in binary, some columns do not have an even number of s: 23 = 6 + + 2 + 9 = 6 + 2 + 3 = + + 2 = + = + 2 + 23 (decimal) = 0 (binary) 9 (decimal) = 00 (binary) 3 (decimal) = 00 (binary) 2 (decimal) = 000 (binary) (decimal) = 00 (binary) The s column, the s column, and the 2 s column all have an odd number of s, so the first player has the winning strategy. (b) The first player should remove 0 beans from the pile with 3 beans (this will create an even number of s in each column). 2. (a) s optimal strategy is: Choose B. If chooses, choose E. s optimal strategy is: If chooses A, choose. If chooses B, choose. (b) has four strategies: Choose A. If chooses 2, choose C. Choose A. If chooses 2, choose D. Choose B. If chooses, choose E. Choose B. If chooses, choose F. 3

We will abbreviate these strategies as AC, AD, BE, and BF. has four strategies: If chooses A, choose. If chooses B, choose 3. If chooses A, choose. If chooses B, choose. If chooses A, choose 2. If chooses B, choose 3. If chooses A, choose 2. If chooses B, choose. We will abbreviate these strategies as (, 3), (, ), (2, 3), and (2, ). The payoff matrix for this game is: (, 3) (, ) (2, 3) (2, ) AC 5, 3 5, 3 2, 6 2, 6 AD 5, 3 5, 3 7, 2 7, 2 BE, 2 6,, 2 6, BF, 2, 3, 2, 3 3. (a) Yes, it is a Nash equilibrium. To see this, we start by assuming that uses the strategy Rock + Paper + Scissors, and we determine s best response to this strategy: If chooses Rock, s expected value is: 9 (0) + 9 ( ) + 9 () = 0 If chooses Paper, s expected value is: 9 () + 9 (0) + 9 ( ) = 0 If chooses Scissors, s expected value is: 9 ( ) + 9 () + 9 (0) = 0 Thus, s best response is Rock, Paper, Scissors, or any combination of these. In particular, Rock + Paper + Scissors is a best response. Now, we assume that uses the strategy Rock + Paper + Scissors, and we determine s best response to this strategy: If chooses Rock, s expected value is: 9 (0) + 9 ( ) + 9 () = 0 If chooses Paper, s expected value is: 9 () + 9 (0) + 9 ( ) = 0 If chooses Scissors, s expected value is: 9 ( ) + 9 () + 9 (0) = 0 Thus, s best response is Rock, Paper, Scissors, or any combination of these. In particular, Rock+ Paper+ Scissors is a best response. Since both strategies are a best response to the other s strategy, there is no incentive for either player to switch strategies, so it is a Nash equilibrium. (b) No, it is not a Nash equilibrium. To see this, we start by assuming that uses the strategy 5Rock + Paper, and we determine s best response to this 9 9 strategy. If chooses Rock, s expected value is: 5(0) + ( ) = If chooses Paper, s expected value is: 5() + (0) = 5

If chooses Scissors, s expected value is: 5( ) + () = Thus, s best response is Paper. Thus, would not use the strategy Rock + Scissors, so it is not a Nash equilibrium. 9 9 (c) If uses the strategy 5Rock + Paper, then: 9 9 If chooses Rock, s expected value is: 5(0) + ( ) = If chooses Paper, s expected value is: 5() + (0) = 5 If chooses Scissors, s expected value is: 5( ) + () = Thus, ( if uses the strategy Rock + Scissors, then s expected payoff 9 9 is ) ( 9 9 + ) 9 9 = 36 =. 9 If uses the strategy Rock + Scissors, then: 9 9 If chooses Rock, s expected value is: (0) + () = If chooses Paper, s expected value is: () + ( ) = If chooses Scissors, s expected value is: ( ) + 32 (0) = Thus, if uses the strategy 5Rock + Paper, then s expected payoff is 9 9 5 9 ( 9 ) + 9 ( 9 ) = 36 9 =. Thus, s expected payoff is and s expected payoff is.. (a) First, we check for pure strategy Nash equilibria by creating the best response diagram: A B A, 6 2, B, 5 (, ) From the best response diagram, we see that there are two pure strategy Nash equilibria: (A, B) and (B, A). Next, we check for mixed strategy Nash equilibria. Suppose that uses the mixed strategy ( p)a + pb. Then, s expected payoffs are: If chooses A, s expected value is: ( p)(6) + p(5) = 6 p If chooses B, s expected value is: ( p)() + p() = p We set these equal: 6 p = p Solving, we get that p = 2/3. Thus, if uses the strategy A + 2 B, will 3 3 be indifferent between A and B (so that any mixed strategy involving A and B will be a best response for ). Now, suppose that uses the mixed strategy ( p)a + pb. Then, s expected payoffs are: 5

If chooses A, s expected value is: ( p)() + p(2) = + p If chooses B, s expected value is: ( p)() + p() = 3p We set these equal: + p = 3p Solving, we get that p = 3/. Thus, if uses the strategy A + 3 B, will be indifferent between A and B (so that any mixed strategy involving A and B will be a best response for ). Thus, there are three Nash equilibria: (A, B), (B, A), and ( A + 2B, A + 3B). 3 3 (b) Suppose that uses the mixed strategy ( p)a + pb. Then: If chooses A, s expected value is: ( p)() + p() = + 3p If chooses B, s expected value is: ( p)(2) + p() = 2 p We graph the equations for these lines: 3 2 p From the graph, we can see that s prudential strategy lies at the intersection of the two lines. Thus, we set the two equations equal: + 3p = 2 p Solving, we get that that p = /. We can plug this value for p into either equation to get that s security level is + 3 ( ) = 7/. Thus, s prudential strategy is 3A + B and her secruity level is 7/. (c) Suppose that uses the mixed strategy ( p)a + pb. Then: If chooses A, s expected value is: ( p)(6) + p() = 6 + 2p If chooses B, s expected value is: ( p)(5) + p() = 5 p 6

We graph the equations for these lines: 6 2 p From the graph, we can see that s prudential strategy occurs at p = 0, which means his prudential strategy is A. His security level is 5. Thus, s prudential strategy is A and his secruity level is 5. 5. (a) First, we check for pure strategy Nash equilibria by creating the best response diagram: A B A, 2 3, 6 B 5, ) 2, 7 From the best response diagram, we see that there is one pure strategy Nash equilibrium: (A, B). Before checking for mixed strategy Nash equilibria, we should check for rows or columns that dominate (since Nash equilibria only occur in undominated rows and columns). In this matrix, Column B dominates Column A, so we can eliminate Column A. After we eliminate Column A, Row A dominates Row B, so we can eliminate Row B. This leaves us only with the strategy pair (A, B), so there are not any additional mixed strategy Nash equilibria. There is exactly one Nash equilibrium: (A, B). (b) Suppose that uses the mixed strategy ( p)a + pb. Then: If chooses A, s expected value is: ( p)() + p(5) = + p If chooses B, s expected value is: ( p)(3) + p(2) = 3 p 7

We graph the equations for these lines: 5 3 2 p From the graph, we can see that s prudential strategy lies at the intersection of the two lines. Thus, we set the two equations equal: + p = 3 p Solving, we get that that p = 2/5. We can plug this value for p into either equation to get that s security level is + ( 2 5) = 3/5. Thus, s prudential strategy is 3A + 2 B and her secruity level is 3/5. 5 5 (c) Suppose that uses the mixed strategy ( p)a + pb. Then: If chooses A, s expected value is: ( p)(2) + p(6) = 2 + p If chooses B, s expected value is: ( p)() + p(7) = + 6p We graph the equations for these lines:

6 2 p From the graph, we can see that s prudential strategy occurs at p =, which means his prudential strategy is B. His security level is 6. Thus, s prudential strategy is B and his secruity level is 6. 6. First, we check for pure strategy Nash equilibrium by creating the best response diagram: A B A 9, 3 3, B, 2 6, C 5, 7, 2 D, 5 7, 9 From the best response diagram, we see that there are two pure strategy Nash equilibria: (A, A) and (D, B). Next, we look for mixed strategy Nash equilibria. Suppose that uses the mixed strategy ( p)a + pb. Then, s expected payoffs are: If chooses A, s expected value is: ( p)(9) + p(3) = 9 6p If chooses B, s expected value is: ( p)() + p(6) = 2p If chooses C, s expected value is: ( p)(5) + p() = 5 p If chooses D, s expected value is: ( p)() + p(7) = + 3p We graph the equations for these lines: 9

Potential Nash Equilibria 0 6 2 D B C A p From the graph, we can see that there are two potential mixed strategy Nash equilibria (not counting pure strategy Nash equilibria). One potential Nash equilibrium comes from using strategies A and B; the other comes from using strategies B and D. We will check both of these separately. If uses strategies A and B, the matrix looks like: A B A (9, 3) (3, ) B (, 2) (6, ) Suppose that uses the mixed strategy ( p)a + pb. Then, s expected payoffs are: If chooses A, s expected value is: ( p)(3) + p(2) = 3 p If chooses B, s expected value is: ( p)() + p() = + 7p We set these equal: 3 p = + 7p Solving, we get that p = /. Thus, if uses the strategy 3A + B, will be indifferent between A and B (so that any mixed strategy involving A and B will be a best response for ). 0

To find the corresponding strategy for to use, we set the equations for the lines for A and B equal: 9 6p = 2p Solving, we get that p = /. Thus, if uses the strategy 3A + B, s best response will be A, B, or any combination of A and B (we can see this by looking at the previous graph). Thus, one mixed strategy Nash equilibrium is ( 3 A + B, 3A + B). Now, we consider using strategies B and D. If uses B and D, the matrix looks like: A B B (, 2) (6, ) D (, 5) (7, 9) Suppose that uses the mixed strategy ( p)b + pd. Then, s expected payoffs are: If chooses A, s expected value is: ( p)(2) + p(5) = 2 + 3p If chooses B, s expected value is: ( p)(5) + p(9) = 5 + p We set these equal: 2 + 3p = 5 + p Solving, we get that p = 3. Since 3 < 0, this does not correspond to a Nash equilibrium. Thus, there is not a Nash equilibrium corresponding to the second point in the graph. Thus, this game has three Nash equilibria: (A, A), (D, B), and ( 3 A + B, 3 A + B). 7. (a) Yes, this is a zero-sum game. Each entry sums to 9, so we can subtract 9 from all of s numbers to obtain a matrix where all the entries sum to zero. (b) No, this is not a zero-sum game. To see this, we try to create a linear function that will change s numbers into the negative of s numbers. This linear function would need to send to 2, 3 to, to, and to 0. Thus, we would need an equation for a line that contains the points (, 2), (3, ), (, ), and (, 0). We can find an equation for a line containing the first two points, and then we can check whether it also contains the last two points. The slope of a line through the first two points would be: m = y 2 y x 2 x = + 2 3 = 6 2 = 3 Thus, the line is of the form y = 3x + b. To solve for b, we plug in the values from the first point: 2 = 3() + b. Solving, we get b =. Thus, the line must

be y = 3x +. However, the fourth point (, 0), does not lie on this line, since 0 3()+. Thus, we cannot change s numbers into the negative of s numbers simply by multiplying by a constant and adding a constant. Thus, it is not a zero-sum game. (c) Yes, it is a zero-sum game. To see this, we create a linear function that will change s numbers into the negative of s numbers. This linear function would need to send 3 to and to 3 (and also work for all the other entries in the matrix). We can find the equation for the line containing the points ( 3, ) and (, 3). The slope of the line is: m = y 2 y x 2 x = 3 + + 3 = = 2 Thus, the line is of the form y = 2x + b. To solve for b, we plug in the values from the first point = 2( 3) + b. Solving, we get b = 5. Thus, the line is y = 2x 5. This equation does work for all of the other entries in the matrix, so it is a zero-sum game.. (a) i. If and both always choose A, then always receives 6, so her expected payoff is: ( ) ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 7 7 7 7 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + = 6 7 = (b) Thus, s expected payoff is. ii. If and both always choose A, then always receives 7, so his expected payoff is: ( ) ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 7 7 7 7 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + = 7 7 7 = 56 Thus, s expected payoff is 56. i. On the first two rounds chooses A and chooses B, so receives 0 for the first two rounds. After that and both choose B, so receives 3 for the later rounds. Her expected payoff is: ( ) ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 7 7 7 7 0 + 0 + 3 + 3 + 3 +... ( ) 2 7 = 3 + 3 = 3 ( ) 7 2 7 ( 7 ) 3 + 3 = 7 =.375 Thus, s expected payoff is.375. 2 ( 7 ) +...

ii. On the first two rounds chooses A and chooses B, so receives 0 for the first two rounds. After that and both choose B, so receives 5 for the later rounds. His expected payoff is: ( ) 7 0 + 0 + 5 [ = 50 + 5 = 50 + 5 ( 7 2 ) 7 ( ) 2 7 + 5 ( ) 2 7 + 5 Thus, s expected payoff is 9.375. ( ) 3 7 + 5 ( ) 3 7 + 5 ( 7 ( ) 7 +... ) ] +... = 50 + 25 = 395 = 9.375 9. (a) We create a table with all possible orderings of A, B, and C, and showing the marginal contributions of each of A, B, and C in the given order: Order A B C ABC 0 50 0 ACB 0 0 20 BAC 60 0 0 BCA 50 0 90 CAB 30 0 0 CBA 50 90 0 The average for A is 20/6 = 35, the average for B is 360/6 = 60, and the average for C is 270/6 = 5. Thus the Shapley allocation is: A B C 35 60 5 (b) Yes, the allocation is rational. To see this we need to check that every coalition receives at least as much as it would on its own: A receives 35, which is greater than the 0 that A would receive on its own. BC receive 60 + 5 = 05, which is greater than the 90 they receive on their own. AC receive 35 + 5 = 0, which is greater than the 30 they would receive on their own. AB receive 35 + 60 = 95, which is greater than the 60 they would receive on their own. Thus, the allocation is rational. 3