Choco fantasy is a firm that produces both dark chocolates as well as liquor chocolates. it can produce 10,000 bars of dark chocolate per month if all its resources are used to produce only this variety. similarly, using all its resources in the production of liquor chocolates, the firm can produce 8,000 bars per month. however, during a given month, the firm produces both varieties. which of the following, if true, would suggest that the firm is operating on its ppf? a. most domestic consumers prefer the better quality swiss chocolates imported by the country. b. the opportunity cost of shifting resources from the production of liquor chocolates to dark chocolates is marginal. c. medical reports earlier this year indicated that higher chocolate consumption increases the risk of heart attack. d. even though the demand for both liquor and dark chocolates has increased, the company can increase the production of only one variety. e. in an attempt to cut costs, the company is planning to fire its unproductive resources.

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.