Musashi lives in philadelphia and loves to eat desserts. he spends his entire weekly allowance on pudding and pie. a bowl of pudding is priced at $1.00, and a piece of pumpkin pie is priced at $4.00. at his current consumption point, musashi's marginal rate of substitution (mrs) of pudding for pie is 3. this means that musashi is willing to trade three bowls of pudding per week for one piece of pie per week. does larry's current bundle maximize his utility—in other words, make him as well off as possible? if not, how should he change it to maximize his utility?

larry could increase his utility by buying more pudding and less pie per week.

larry's current bundle maximizes his utility, and he should keep it unchanged.

larry could increase his utility by buying less pudding and more pie per week.

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court. the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court. because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located. because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center. because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.