- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Hello Sir, please help me confirm the answer to OT ques 5 of cara co.
The answer no. 25 in the mark scheme says:
In the graph, the labour line 2S + 3H= 24,000 is well above the feasible region which means that it is not a binding constraint and there are more labour hours than is required. Even if demand increases for both products, labour would still be a slack variable as machine hours are the binding constraint and that is not expected to change. Statement (1) is correct.
Doesn’t the explanation mean and also otherwise that Statement one is not correct..
Because ”Even if demand increases for both products, labour would still be a slack variable” and the ques says ”unless the demand increases”I thought the answer to this whole question would be D, that neither of the statements are correct. Please help me clear my confusion..
But the question does not use the word ‘unless’. Statement 1 says “even if demand for either product increases, labour will be a slack variable if no other resources change”. This is true because the materials and machine hours will still limit the production and labour will still be a slack variable.
Sir I’m quoting the question I found in CBE past exam:
Which of the following interpretations of the linear programming graph produced for month 3 is/are correct?
(1)
All other things being equal, unless demand increases for either product labour will be a slack variable
(2)
If more machine hours were made available in month 3 they would be used initially to make Herdorfs
1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
Neither 1 nor 2
Maybe the version you are looking at has been mistyped.
I have the actual exam in front of me and statement 1 says:
“Even if demand for either product increases, labour will be a slack variable if no other resources change”
That is true for the reason I wrote in my previous reply.
Possible.. Oh and this CBE ques has been quoted from the ACCA website. anyways thank you so much for the clarification!!
This is very poor of the ACCA. I was quoting from the paper based version of the exam. Obviously whoever retyped it for the computer based version mistyped it.
Sir, if more machine hours become available, why would be used to make Seebach not Hedrof. Hedrof machine contribution per unit is more than seebach. Please explain.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.