A relationship type is fully specified only when

a$.$ The cardinality ratio is specified.

b$.$ it relates to more than one entity type.

c$.$ there is at least one attribute specified for the relationship type.

d$.$ the participation constraints are specified.

e$.$ two of the statements above are true.

$($If so$,$ specify which ones$)$

An entity$-$relationship diagram

a$.$ cannot show multiple relationships between the same two entity types.

b$.$ cannot express a m:n cardinality ratio between two entity types.

c$.$ should not have attributes for a relationship type.

d$.$ should show only one unique identifier for each base $($strong$)$ entity type in the model.

e$.$ none of the statements are correct about an entity$-$relationship diagram.

The domain of an attribute

a$.$ indicates its scope of dominance over other attributes.

b$.$ is the set of permissible values for the attribute.

c$.$ determines the role of an attribute in an entity type.

d$.$ All of the above statements are correct about the domain of an attribute.

e$.$ None of the above statements are correct about the domain of an attribute.

A multi$-$valued attribute

a$.$ is the set of permissible values for the attribute.

b$.$ cannot be expressed in an entity$-$relationship diagram.

c$.$ is the same as a composite attribute.

d$.$ must always be an atomic $($simple$)$ attribute.

e$.$ may have more than one value for the attribute in an entity type.

When a warehouse may stock a number of products and a product may be stocked in several warehouses the relationship between two entities, WAREHOUSE and PRODUCT

a$.$ exhibits total participation of PRODUCT in the Stocks relationship.

b$.$ has a $1$:n cardinality ratio.

c$.$ exhibits total participation of WAREHOUSE in the Stocks relationship.

d$.$ has a $1$:$1$ cardinality ratio.

e$.$ none of the above statements is correct.