Ans 1.

If you want to solve the issue as a linear programme, set x and y as the quantities of product A
and B that were created, respectively. Consequently, the goal is to maximise profit, which is
expressed as:

Boost: 3x + 5y

subject to the aforementioned limitations

Assembly time restriction: 12x + 25y = 1800 minutes (because there are 30 hours in a
week and each hour has 60 minutes, making 1800 minutes of effective assembly time).

Technical restriction: x/5 y/2 (because at least 2 units of product B must be generated for
every 5 units of product A produced).

Due to the company's inability to generate negative quantities of the products, the
non-negativity restriction is that x and y must equal zero.

We can graph the feasible region defined by the aforementioned constraints and determine the

corner points of the region to discover the sites of intersection for maximisation. The many

combinations of products A and B that adhere to the constraints are represented by these corner

points.

The feasible region's graph is displayed below:

The viable region's corner points are (0, 0), (83.33, 33.33), (100, 40), and (125, 20).

We assess the objective function at each of these corner points and select the position that

yields the highest value to identify the best solution. At (100, 40), when the profit is: 3(100) +

5(40) = 420, the maximum profit is made.

In order to maximise profits, the corporation should create 40 units of product B and 100 units of

product A.

The effective assembly time would increase to 60 hours (or 3600 minutes) per week if the

company hired an additional machine. The linear program's assembly time limitation would then

be changed to: 12x + 25y 3600.

We can utilise the shadow price of the assembly time constraint to calculate the highest sum the

corporation should be ready to pay to rent the additional machine. The rise in the objective

function value that would occur if the constraint were eased by one unit is represented by the

shadow price. The additional profit made per minute of assembly time in this instance is

represented by the shadow price.

We solve the linear programme with the adjusted assembly time constraint and track the shift in

the value of the objective function to get the shadow price. The new best answer is (150, 60), and

it yields a profit of 3(150) + 5(60) = 630.

We can see that the additional assembly time has increased the profit by 210 when we compare

this to the initial profit of 420. As a result, the following is the shadow cost of the assembly time

constraint:

210/1800 = 0.1167

Accordingly, the business can anticipate making an extra profit of Rs 0.1167 for each additional

minute of assembly time. The most the corporation should be willing to spend for the use of this

machine is 1800(0.1167) = Rs 210.06 per week if they hire an additional machine that adds 1800

minutes of assembly time per week, bringing the total to 3600 minutes.

The corporation should spend no more than this because any more expenses would lower its
profit.

Ans 2

We can define the decision variables as follows in order to formulate the issue as a linear
programme:

Let x1 be the quantity of units of product A made.

Let x2 be the quantity of product B that was made.

Let x3 represent the quantity of units of product C made.

The goal is to maximise the total cost contribution, which is determined by the formula: Z = 5x1 +
10x2 + 3x3.
subject to the aforementioned limitations
(Fabrication Department) 3x1 + 5x2 + 2x3 = 60
(Finishing Department) 4x1 + 4x2 + 4x3 = 72
(Packaging Department) 2x1 + 4x2 + 5x3 = 100

where positive numbers x1, x2, and x3 are all present.

The following problem can be transformed to standard form using the simplex method:

Max Z = 5x1 + 10x2 + 3x3 + 0s1 + 0s2 + 0s3

In consideration of:
3x1 + 5x2 + 2x3 + s1 = 60
4x1 + 4x2 + 4x3 + s2 = 72
2x1 + 4x2 + 5x3 + s3 = 100

where the slack variables are s1, s2, and s3.

The first tableau shows:

Basis x1 x2 x3 s1 s2 s3 S

s1 3 5 2 1 0 0 60

s2 4 4 4 0 1 0 72

s3 2 4 5 0 0 1 100

Z -5 -10 -3 0 0 0 0

Since x2 has the highest coefficient in the objective function, it is the variable to be entered. For
each constraint, we compute the ratios of the RHS to the coefficients of x2 to identify the leaving
variable:

s1: 60/5 = 12
s2: 72/4 = 18

s3: 100/4 = 25

S1, which has the smallest ratio, is the leaving variable as a result.

The pivot element (5) in row 1 is then set to equal 1 by using row operations as follows:
 Basis x1 x2 x3 s1 s2 s3 S

x2 3/5 1 2/5 1/5 0 0 12

s2 8/5 0 14/5 -4/5 1 0 36

s3 4/5 0 21/5 -2/5 0 1 20

Z 1 0 1/5 -1/5 0

Ans 3

a) To represent the stated issue as an LPP, let x1 and x2 be the sums invested in stocks A and B,

respectively. The problem is best characterised as:

Maximum return is 0.09x1 + 0.15x2, subject to the following restriction: Total risk is equal to

0.06(5 + 8) or 0.05x1 + 0.08x2.

(Maximum total investment) x1 + x2 = 500000

Minimum return limitation (non-negative restrictions): 0.09x1 + 0.15x2 >= 0.12(500000). x1 >= 0 ,

x2 >= 0

The portfolio's overall risk is kept within the permissible range thanks to the first constraint. The

second limitation ensures that the total investment amount is equal to Rs. 500,000. The third

restriction ensures that the minimum required return is satisfied. The objective function is to

maximise overall return.

b)What would be the most effective strategy to increase sales given the company's limited

resources? Assume that x1, x2, and x3 are the corresponding numbers of tables, desks, and

chairs manufactured. The problem is best characterised as:

Assuming that 8x1 + 6x2 + 4x3 = 100, maximise total income by 8000x1 + 6000x2 + 5000x3.

(Metal restriction) 5x1, 4x2, and 4x3 equal 60.

The constraints x1 >= 0, x2 >= 0, and x3 >= 0 are non-negative.

The first limitation ensures that the total weight of wood used in production does not exceed 100

kg. The second constraint ensures that less than 60 kg of metal is used overall in manufacture.

The aim is to maximise total revenue.

To determine how much money to allocate for each unit of resource, a bigger company like IKEA
would need to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. They would need to decide what the highest price
they are willing to pay for each unit of wood and metal is in order to make sure that the expense
of obtaining the resources does not outweigh the revenue from selling the furniture. The deal
should be fair to both the bigger and smaller business while yet being acceptable to the bigger
one.