$\backslash$table$[[,\backslash$table$[[$Wild Turkey: Advertises on$],[$TV$]],\backslash$table$[[$Wild Turkey: No TV$],[$Advertising$]]],[\backslash$table$[[$Crown Royal: TV$],[$Advertising$]],\backslash$table$[[$Crown Royal: $$15$ million$],[$Wild Turkey: $$15$ million$]],\backslash$table$[[$Crown Royal: $$30$ million$],[$Wild Turkey: $$8$ million$]]],[\backslash$table$[[$Crown Roay:$],[$Advertising$]],\backslash$table$[[$Crown Royal: $$8$ million$],[$Wild Turkey: $$30$ million$]],\backslash$table$[[$Crown Royal: $$24$ million$],[$Wild Turkey: $$24$ million$]]]]$

$*$$ amounts are company profits.

Refer to the above matrix. If the federal government were successful in banning liquor advertisements, which of the following would be true? Select all that apply:

The government's policy would be an example of a commitment device.

The government's policy would be an example of a dominant strategy.

Both companies would be better off.

Both companies would be worse off.