Given E being semantically secure which one of the following constructions are also semantically secure. You can use an English argument rather than a rigorous mathematical one. (If E' is semantically secure, you can prove this by showing that if it weren't you could break the semantic security of E via an adversary. If E' is not semantically secure you can prove this by describing an adversary that breaks its semantic security with non-negligible advantage). a) E (k, m) := (0, E(k,m)) (parentheses represent concatenation) b) E2(k, m) := (E(k, m), parity(m)) (append the parity of the message to the ciphertext) c) E3(k,m) := reverse(E(k,m)) d) E4(k,m) := E(k, reverse(m) Where reverse() reverses the order of bits in m. It is a specific bit-permutation. Given E being semantically secure which one of the following constructions are also semantically secure. You can use an English argument rather than a rigorous mathematical one. (If E' is semantically secure, you can prove this by showing that if it weren't you could break the semantic security of E via an adversary. If E' is not semantically secure you can prove this by describing an adversary that breaks its semantic security with non-negligible advantage). a) E (k, m) := (0, E(k,m)) (parentheses represent concatenation) b) E2(k, m) := (E(k, m), parity(m)) (append the parity of the message to the ciphertext) c) E3(k,m) := reverse(E(k,m)) d) E4(k,m) := E(k, reverse(m) Where reverse() reverses the order of bits in m. It is a specific bit-permutation