Mr. And Mrs. Ward Typically Vote Oppositely In Elections

151mr And Mrs Ward Typically Vote Oppositely In Elections And So Th

Identify the core assignment question regarding modeling the voting behavior of Mr. and Mrs. Ward, including their utility analysis and decision-making process. The task involves creating a diagram for a game where they choose whether to vote or not to vote, considering the utility gain from their votes, the bother cost, and their opposing voting tendencies.

Describe the equilibrium of a game where Microsoft and a smaller rival select compatible or different technologies, with players' preferences clearly specified.

Analyze a sequential move game where an employer offers a salary after a negotiation, exploring how the timing and ability to move first influence the outcome and the strategies for the employee to secure a higher payoff.

Examine a game involving an entrant considering industry entry, with options to withdraw or stay, and determine the equilibrium considering the payoffs for each choice. Discuss whether the entrant prefers having the ability to withdraw or not.

Discuss network infrastructure configuration, including creating and analyzing router tables, subnet ranges, and IP assignments for multiple sites, and simulate this configuration in Packet Tracer, submitting the resulting file.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The decision-making processes of individuals and firms in strategic contexts are fundamental to understanding economic and organizational behavior. In the case of Mr. and Mrs. Ward, their voting behavior exemplifies a non-cooperative game where individual utilities, costs, and preferences interact to determine voting outcomes. This analysis aims to model their choices using game theory, illustrating the conditions under which they choose to vote or abstain and how their opposing voting tendencies influence the equilibrium.

In constructing the game diagram, each spouse faces two strategies: to vote or not to vote. Their payoffs depend on the utilities from advocating for their positions, the null utility from voting against their preferences, and the costs associated with voting. Specifically, both individuals gain a utility of two units from voting according to their preferences and lose two units from voting against their preferences. Moreover, the act of voting incurs a one-unit utility cost, representing the bother or effort involved. When both players vote, their utilities are affected by the alignment or misalignment of their preferences, and the costs are deducted accordingly.

The game can be represented in a payoff matrix or extensive form, with each individual's strategies and outcomes displayed. Analyzing best responses reveals the Nash equilibrium, which typically involves a mixed strategy or an equilibrium where both choose to abstain or vote, depending on the relative utility gains and costs. Due to the mutual opposition in voting, the equilibrium may favor abstention, as the utility gains may be offset by the costs and the mutual cancellation effect, leading to a "campaigning" stalemate where neither votes, or both vote in a way that cancels out the utility effect.

Next, the interaction between Microsoft and its smaller rival can be modeled as a coordination game with conflicting preferences. Microsoft prefers to select a different technology to differentiate itself, while the rival prefers alignment for compatibility reasons. The game outcomes are a set of pure-strategy Nash equilibria where either both pick the same technology or both pick different ones. The equilibrium analysis shows a mixed-strategy scenario depending on the payoff matrix parameters, but typically, the game stabilizes where Microsoft chooses differently, and the rival conforms, resulting in a stable equilibrium where Microsoft achieves its strategic goal.

The salary negotiation scenario presents a sequential game where the employer moves first, proposing a salary, followed by the employee's decision to accept or walk away. The employer's advantage in moving first lies in setting the terms that influence the employee's decision, potentially leading to an optimal outcome favoring the employer. The employee, anticipating the employer's move, must consider the payoffs and strategize accordingly, possibly countering with signaling or negotiation tactics to improve their payoff and influence the initial offer. Backward induction helps identify the most likely outcome and whether the first-mover advantage benefits the employer significantly.

In the industry entry game, the entrant considers whether to stay or withdraw if challenged by the incumbent. Withdrawals entail a modest loss for the entrant and a significant gain for the incumbent, while staying involves moderate losses for both. The equilibrium depends on the strategies' payoffs, with the entrant favoring withdrawal if the expected payoff is higher, or staying if the potential gains outweigh the losses. The analysis suggests that with the ability to withdraw, the entrant might prefer this strategy to minimize losses, leading to an equilibrium where withdrawal is the dominant strategy if the threat of competition is sufficiently high.

Finally, the network infrastructure design involves creating accurate router tables, subnet ranges, and IP address assignments across multiple sites. Using Packet Tracer, the configuration would entail setting up VLANs, IP schemes, and VPN tunnels according to specified parameters. The simulation ensures network connectivity, security, and efficiency, with the final Packet Tracer (.pkt) file submitted for review. This practical exercise reinforces theoretical understanding with hands-on skills essential to network management and design.

References

• Osborne, M. J., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press.
• Myerson, R. B. (1991). Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Harvard University Press.
• Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1991). Game Theory. MIT Press.
• Selten, R. (1975). Reexamination of the Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Games. International Journal of Game Theory, 4(1), 25-55.
• Gibbons, R. (1992). Game Theory for Applied Economists. Princeton University Press.
• Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin.
• Cisco. (2020). Packet Tracer Network Simulator. Cisco Networking Academy.
• Kurose, J. F., & Ross, K. W. (2017). Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach. Pearson.
• Shin, S. Y. (2019). Network Security Fundamentals. IEEE Communications Magazine.
• Tanenbaum, A. S., & Wetherall, D. J. (2011). Computer Networks. Pearson.