Stocks a and b have the following data. assuming the stock market is efficient and the stocks are in equilibrium, which of the following statements is correct?

Aprice ceiling is “binding” if the price ceiling is set below the equilibrium price. suppose that the equilibrium price is $5. if a price ceiling is set at $6, this will not affect the market in any way since $5 remains a legally allowable price (since $5 < $6). a price ceiling of $6 is called a “non-binding” price ceiling. on the other hand, if the price ceiling is set at $4, the price ceiling is “binding” because the natural equilibrium price is $5 but that is no longer allowed. what happens when there is a binding price ceiling? at a price below the equilibrium price, quantity demanded exceeds quantity supplied. there is a shortage. normally, price increases eliminate shortages by increasing quantity supplied and decreasing quantity demanded. in this case, however, price increases are not allowed past the price ceiling. we therefore predict that the observed market price will be right at the price ceiling and there will be a permanent shortage. the observed quantity bought and sold will be dictated by the quantity supplied at the price ceiling. although consumers would like to buy more, there are no more units for sale

Required: 1-a. the marketing manager argues that a $5,000 increase in the monthly advertising budget would increase monthly sales by $9,000. calculate the increase or decrease in net operating income. 1-b. should the advertising budget be increased ? yes no hintsreferencesebook & resources hint #1 check my work 8.value: 1.00 pointsrequired information 2-a. refer to the original data. management is considering using higher-quality components that would increase the variable expense by $2 per unit. the marketing manager believes that the higher-quality product would increase sales by 10% per month. calculate the change in total contribution margin. 2-b. should the higher-quality components be used? yes no

How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project? the environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation. the environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored. if the utility mitigates for the environmental effects, the project is not acceptable. however, before the company chooses to do the project without mitigation, it needs to make sure that any costs of "ill will" for not mitigating for the environmental effects have been considered in the original analysis. the environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur. the environmental effects if not mitigated would result in additional cash flows. therefore, since the plant is legal without mitigation, there are no benefits to performing a "no mitigation" analysis.