QUESTIONS 24-26 ARE BASED ON THE SENSITIVITY REPORT BELOW X, = number of generators, X2 = number of alternators MAX 250 X1 + 150 X2 ST 2X2 +3 X2 S260 (wiring hours) 1 X1 +2 X2 5 140 (testing hours) X, X 20 Objective Cell (Max) Cell Name $F$4 Number to produce Total Profit Final Value 32500 Decision Variable Cells Cell Name $C$4 Number to produce Generators $D$4 Number to produce Alternators Final Value 130 0 Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease 0 250 1E+30 150.0000001 -225 150 225 1E+30 Constraints Coll Name $E$8 Wiring Used $E$9 Testing Used Final Value 260 130 Shadow Constraint Allowable Price R.H. Side Increase 260 20 0 140 1E+30 Allowable Decrease 260 10 125 24. Based on the model's final values, constraint capacities for Testing and Wiring hours are now a. Wiring = 125, Testing = 0 b. Wiring = 0, Testing = 10 C. Wiring = 260, Testing = 140 d. Wiring = 20, Testing = 1E + 30 25. To make the production of one alternator justifiable, the alternator profit coefficient must a. Increase by $225 b. Decrease by$225 Increase by Wiring Shadow Price of $125 d. Decrease by IE +30 C. 26. If the binding constraint can acquire 10 more hours of capacity, what would the company's new profit be? a. $32,500 b. $35,000 c. $33,750 d. None of the above 27. Suppose the wiring constraint coefficient on alternators was reduced to 1.5 hours, does this make producing alternators justified and why? a. No, [150 - 125 (1.5) -0 (2) = -37.2] b. Yes, (150 - 125 (1.5) - 0 (2) = -37.2] c. No, [150 - 225 (1.5) = -187.50) d. Yes, [225(1.5)-225 = 112.5]