distribution and that, based on a $95$ percent confidence interval, the percentage change in the euro is expected to be between $0$ and $6$ percent. Marathon uses this information to create three scenarios: $0,3,$ and $6$ percent for the euro. It derives an estimated NPV based on each scenario and then determines the mean NPV$.$ The NPV was positive for the $3$ and $6$ percent scenarios, but it was slightly negative for the $0$ percent scenario. This led Marathon to reject the project. Its manager stated that it did not want to pursue a project that had a one$-$in$-$three chance of having a negative NPV$.$ Do you agree with the manager's interpretation of the analysis? Explain.

I No$,$ the likelihood of the project's negative NPV is much lower because the probability distribution is presumed to be normal, implying a lower probability for the extremes than the middle of the range.

II Yes, the likelihood that the project's NPV will be negative is sufficiently high $($about $30\%).$

III Yes, even if the likelihood of the project's negative NPV is lower $($only one$-$third$)$ the probability distribution is presumed to be normal, implying a higher probability for the extremes than the middle of the range.