Week 6: Sensitive Analysis

1
1. Sensitive Analysis

Sensitivity Analysis is a systematic study of how, well, sensitive, the solutions of the LP are
to small changes in the data. The basic idea is to be able to give answers to questions of the
form:

1. If the objective function changes in its parameter c i , how does the solution change?
2. If the resources available change. how does the solution change?
3. If a new constraint is added to the problem, how does the solution change?

2. Graphical Sensitivity Analysis

This section demonstrates the general idea of sensitivity analysis. Two cases will be
considered:
1. Sensitivity of the optimum solution to changes in the availability of the
resources (right-hand side of the constraints).
2. Sensitivity of the optimum solution to changes in unit profit or unit cost
(coefficients of the objective function).

Example : (Changes in the Right-Hand Side)

JOYCO produces two products on two machines. A unit of product 1 requires 2 hours
on machine 1 and 1 hour on machine 2. For product 2, a unit requires 1 hour on
machine 1 and 3 hours on machine 2. The revenues per unit of products 1 and 2 are
$30 and $20, respectively. The total daily processing time available for each machine
is 8 hours.

Solution:
Let x1=number of unit of product 1
X2=number of unit of product 2

Maximize z=30x1+20x2
Subject to
2x1+ x2 ≤ 8 (machine 1)
X1+ 3x2≤8 (machine 2)
X1,x2 ≥ 0

Solution:

To draw this model following as:

1.to draw 2x1+ x2 ≤ 8 , convert to equality form as

a- first equality 2x1+ x2 =8

b-set x1=0 this lead to x2=8

c-set x2=0 this lead to x1=4

1. To draw x1+ 3x2≤8 ,convert t equality form as

a- First equality x1+ 3x2 = 8
b- Set x1 =0 , this lead to x2=8/3

2
 c- Set x2=0 , this lead to x1=8

Draw of model show in figure below

If the daily capacity is increased from 8 hours to 9 hours, the new optimum will occur
at point G. The rate of change in optimum z resulting from changing machine 1
capacity from 8 hours to 9 hours can be computed as follows:

𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒 𝑐𝑕𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒

𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 z −z C 142−128
=capacityG change = = 14.00 $/hr
𝑚𝑒𝑐𝑕𝑖𝑛𝑒 1 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 9−8
𝑏𝑦 1 𝑕𝑟 (𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝐶 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝐺))

This means that a unit increase (decrease) in machine 1 capacity will increase
(decrease) revenue
by $14.00. clear that the dual price of $14.00/hr remains valid for changes (increases
or decreases) in machine 1 capacity that move its constraint parallel to itself to any
point on the line segment BF.

3
Minimum machine 1 capacity [at B=(0,2.67)]= 2*0 +1* 2.67=2.67
Maximum machine 1 capacity[ at f=(8,0)]= 2*8+1*0=16

2.67≤machine 1 capacity ≤ 16

Same manner computation for machine 2

Minimum machine 2 capacity [at D=(4,0)]=1*4 +3* 0=4

Maximum machine 2 capacity [ at f=(0,8)]= 1*0+3*8=24

The conclusion is that the dual price of $2.00/hr for machine 2 will remain applicable
for the range

4 ≤machine 2 capacity ≤ 14

The dual prices allow making economic decisions about the LP problem, as the
following questions demonstrate:

Question 1: If JOBCO can increase the capacity of both machines, which machine
should receive higher priority?
The dual prices for machines 1 and 2 are $14.00Ihr and $2.00/hr.l11is means that each
additional hour of machine 1 will increase revenue by $14.00, as opposed to only
$2.00 for machine 2. Thus, priority should be given to machine 1.

Question 2. A suggestion is made to increase the capacities of machines 1 and 2 at the

additional cost of $10/hr. Is this advisable?
For machine 1, the additional net revenue per hour is 14.00 -10.00 = $4.00 and for
machine
2, the net is $2.00 $10.00 -$8.00. Hence, only the capacity of machine 1 should be
increased.

Question 3. If the capacity of machine 1 is increased from the present 8 hours to 13

hours, how will this increase impact the optimum revenue?
The dual price for machine 1 is $14.00 and is applicable in the range (2.67, 16) hr.
The proposed increase to 13 hours falls within the feasibility range. Hence, the
increase in revenue is $14.00(13 - 8) = $70.00, which means that the total revenue
will be increased to
(current revenue + change in revenue) 128 + 70 =$198.00.

Question 4. Suppose that the capacity of machine 1 is increased to 20 hours, hQW

will this increase impact the optimum revenue?
The proposed change is outside the range (2.67, 16) hr for which the dual price of
$14.00 remains applicable. Thus, we can only make an immediate conclusion
regarding an increase up to 16 hours. Beyond that, further calculations are needed to
find the answer. Remember that falling outside the feasibility range does not mean
that the problem has no solution. It only means that we do not have sufficient
information to make an immediate decision.

4
Question 5. We know that the change in the optimum objective value equals (dual
price x change in resource) so long as the change in the resource is within the
feasibility range. What about the associated optimum values of the variables?
The optimum values of the variables will definitely change. However, the level of
information we have from the graphical solution is not sufficient to determine the new
values.

Example:(Changes in the Objective Coefficients)

Changes in revenue units (i.e., objective- function coefficients) will change the slope
of z. However, as can be seen from the figure below, the optimum solution will
remain at point C so long as the objective functions between lines BF and DE, the two
constraints that define the optimum point. This means that there is a range for the
coefficients of the objective function that will keep the optimum solution unchanged
at C.

We can write the objective function in the general format

Maximize z= c1x1+c2x2

Imagine now that the line z is pivoted at C and that it can rotate clockwise and
counterclockwise. The optimum solution will remain at point C so long as
z = Cx1 + cx2 lies between the two lines x1 + 3x2 = 8 and 2xI +x2 = 8. This
means that the ratio (c1/c2) can vary between 1/3 and 2/1, which yields the
following condition:

5
 1 𝑐1 2
3
≤ 𝑐2 ≤ 1

This information can provide immediate answers regarding the optimum solution as
the following questions demonstrate:

Question 1. Suppose that the unit revenues for products 1 and 2 are changed to $35
and $25, respectively. Will the current optimum remain the same?

The new objective function is

Maximize z=35x1+25x2

The solution at C will remain optimal because c1/c2 = 1.4 remains within the
optimality range (0.333,2). When the ratio falls outside this range, additional
calculations are needed to find the new optimum . Notice that although the values of
the variables at the optimum point C remain uncha nged, the optimum value of z
changes to

35 X (3.2) + 25 X (1.6) = $152.00.

Question 2. Suppose that the unit revenue of product 2 is fixed at its current value of
C2 = $20.00. What is the associated range for cj, the unit revenue for product 1 that
will keep the optimum unchanged?

Substitution c2 =20 in the condition

1 𝑐1 2
≤ ≤
3 𝑐2 1

1 𝑐1 2
≤ 20 ≤ 1
3

1
∗ 20 ≤ 𝑐1 ≤2*20
3

6.666 ≤ 𝑐1 ≤ 40

We can similarly determine the optimality range for Cz by fixing the value of CI at
$30.00. Thus,

1 30 2
≤ 𝑐2 ≤ 1
3

Reverse
3 𝑐2 1
≥ ≥
1 30 2

6
 Equivalent to
1 𝑐2 3
≤ 30 ≤ 1
2

1 3
∗ 30 ≤ 𝑐2 ≤ 1 ∗ 30
2

15 ≤ 𝑐2 ≤ 90

2.Algebraic Sensitivity Analysis-Changes in the Right-Hand Side

we used the graphical solution to determine the dual prices (the unit worths of
resources) and their feasibility ranges. This section extends the analysis to the general
LP model. A numeric example (the TOYCO model) will be used to facilitate the
presentation.

Example: (TOYCO Model)

TOYCO assembles three types of toys-trains, trucks, and cars-using three operations.
The daily limits on the available times for the three operations are 430,460, and 420
minutes, respectively, and the revenues per unit of toy train, truck, and car are $3, $2,
and $5, respectively. The assembly times per train at the three operations are 1, 3, and
1 minutes, respectively. The corresponding times per train and per car are (2,0,4) and
(1,2,0) minutes (a zero time indicates that the operation is not used).

Let x1=daily number of units assembled of trains

x2= daily number of units assembled of trucks

x3= daily number of units assembled of cars

the associated LP model is given as:

maximize z=3x1+2x2+5x3

subject to

x1+2x2+x3≤430 (operation 1)

3x1+ +2x3≤460 (operation 2)

x1+4x2 ≤420 (operation 3)

x1,x2,x3≥0

7
Using X4, Xs, and X6 as the slack variables for the constraints of operations 1,2, and
3, respectively, the optimum tableau is

Basic X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 solution
Z 4 0 0 1 2 0 1350
X2 -1/4 1 0 1/2 -1/4 0 100
X3 3/2 0 1 0 1/2 0 230
X6 2 0 0 -2 1 1 20

The solution recommends manufacturing 100 trucks and 230 cars but no trains. The
associated revenue is $1350.

Determination of Dual Prices: The constraints of the model after adding the slack
variables X4, Xs, and X6 can be written as follows:

xl + 2x2 + x3 +x4 = 430 (Operation 1)

3xl + 2x3 + x5 = 460 (Operation 2)

xl + 4x2 + x6 = 420 (Operation 3)

or

xl + 2x2 + x3 = 430 - x4 (Operation 1)

3xl + 2x3 =460 – x5 (Operation 2)

xl + 4x2 = 420 - x6 (Operation 3)

With this representation, the slack variables have the same units (minutes) as the
operation times. Thus, we can say that a one- minute decrease in the slack variable is
equivalent to a one- minute increase in the operation time.

can use the information above to determine the dual prices from the z-equation in the
optimal tableau:

Z + 4X1+ X4 + 2X5 + 0X6 =: 1350

This equation can be written as

z = 1350 - 4xl - x4 - 2x5 - 0x6

=1350 - 4xl + 1(- x4) + 2(- x5) + 0(- x6)

Given that a decrease in the value of a slack variable is equivalent to an increase in its
operation time, we get

8
 z = 1350- 4xl + 1 x (increase in operation 1 time)

+ 2 x (increase in operation 2 time)

+ 0 x (increase in operation 3 time)

This equation reveals that

(1) a one- minute increase in operation 1 time increases z by $1,

(2) a one- minute increase in operation 2 time increases z by $2,

(3) a one- minute increase in operation 3 time does not change z.

To summarize, the z-row in the optimal tableau:

Basic X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 solution
Z 4 0 0 1 2 0 1350
yields directly the dual prices, as the following table shows:

Resource Slack variable Optimal z-equation Dual price

coefficient of slack
variable
Operation 1 X4 1 $l/min
Operation 2 X5 2 $2/min
Operation 3 X6 0 $0/min
The zero dual price for operation 3 means that there is no economic advantage in
allocating more production time to this operation. The zero dual price for operation 3
means that there is no economic advantage in allocating more production time to this
operation. The result makes sense because the resource is already abundant, as is
evident by the fact that the slack variable associated with Operation 3 is positive ( 20)
in the optimum solution. As for each of Operations 1 and 2, a one minute increase will
improve revenue by $1 and $2, respectively.

The dual prices also indicate that, when allocating additional resources, Operation 2
may be given higher priority because its dual price is twice as much as that of
Operation 1.

Determination of the Feasibility Ranges: Let D1,D2 and D3 be the changes (positive
or negative) in the daily manufacturing time allocated to operations 1,2, and 3,
respectively. The model can be written as follows:

Maximize z= 3xl + 2xz + 5x3

9
subject to

xl + 2x2 + x3≤ 430 +d1 (operation 1)

3xl + 2x3≤ 460 +d2 (operation 2)

xi + 4x2 ≤ 420 + d3 (operation 3)

x1,x2,x3≥0

The procedure is based on recomputing the optimum simplex tableau with the
modified right- hand side and then deriving the conditions that will keep the solution
feasible and The starting tableau will thus appear as:

solution
basic X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 RHS D1 D2 D3
Z -3 -2 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
X4 1 2 1 1 0 0 430 1 0 0
X5 3 0 2 0 1 0 460 0 1 0
X6 1 4 0 0 0 1 420 0 0 1

The columns under Dj, D2, and D3 are identical to those under the starting basic
columns X4, Xs, and x6- This means that when we carry out the same simplex
iterations as in the original model, the columns in the two groups must come out
identical as well Effectively, the new optimal tableau will become

solution
basic X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 RHS D1 D2 D3
Z 4 0 0 1 2 0 1350 1 2 0
X2 -1/4 1 0 1/2 -1/4 0 100 1/2 -1/4 0
X3 3/2 0 1 0 1/2 0 230 0 1/2 0
X6 2 0 0 -2 1 1 20 -2 1 1

The new optimum tableau provides the following optimal solution:

z = 1350 + D1 + 2D2

x2 =100 + 1/2D1 -1/4D2

x3=230+1/2D2

x6 = 20 -2D1 + D2 + D3

Interestingly, as shown earlier, the new z-value confirms that the dual prices for
operations 1,2, and 3 are 1,2, and 0, respectively. The current solution remains

10
feasible so long as all the variables are nonnegative, which leads to the following
feasibility conditions:

x2 = 100 + 1/2Dl – 1/4D2≥ 0

x3 = 230 + 1/2 D2 ≥ 0

x6 = 20 - 2D1 + D2 + D3 ≥ 0

Any simultaneous changes D1, D2, and D3 that satisfy these inequalities will keep
the solution feasible. If all the conditions are satisfied, then the new optimum solution
can be found through direct substitution of D1,D2 and D3 in the equations given
above.

To illustrate the use of these conditions, suppose that the manufacturing time
available for operations 1,2,and 3 are 480,440, and 410 minutes respectively. Then,
Dl =480 - 430 = 50, D2 = 440 - 460 = -20, and D3 = 410 - 420 = -10. Substituting in
the feasibility conditions, we get

x2 = 100 +1/2(50) – 1/4(-20) 130 > 0 (feasible)

x3 = 230 + 1/2(-20) = 220 > 0 (feasible)

x6 = 20 - 2(50) + (-20) + (- 10) = -110 < 0 (infeasible)

The calculations show that X6 < 0, hence the current solution does not remain feasible
Additional calculations will be needed to find the new solution. Alternatively, if the
changes in the resources are such that Dl = -30, D2=-12,and D3= 10, then

x2 = 100 + 1/2(-30) -1/4(-12) = 88> 0 (feasible)

x3 = 230 + 1/2(-12)= 224> 0 (feasible)

x6 = 20- 2(-30) + (-12) + (10) = 78 > 0 (feasible)

The given conditions can be specialized to produce the individual feasibility ranges
that result from changing the resources one at a time

Case 1. Change in operation 1 lime from 460 to 460 + Dl minutes. This change is
equivalent to setting D2 = D3=0 in the simultaneous conditions, which yields

11
 1
𝑥2 = 100 + 𝐷1 ≥ 0 → 𝐷1 ≥ −200
2 → −200 ≤ 𝐷1 ≤ 10
𝑥3 = 230 > 0
𝑥6 = 20 − 2𝐷1 ≥ 0 → 𝐷1 ≤ 10

Case 2. Change in operation 2 time from 430 to 430 + ~ minutes. This change is
equivalent to setting D1 = D3 = 0 in the simultaneous conditions, which yields

1
𝑥2 = 100 − 4 𝐷2 ≥ 0 → 𝐷2 ≤ 400
𝑥3 = 230 + 2𝐷2 ≥ 0 → 𝐷2 ≥ −460 → −20 ≤ 𝐷2 ≤ 400
1

𝑥6 = 20 + 𝐷2 ≥ 0 → 𝐷2 ≥ −20
Case 3. Change in operation 3 time from 420 to 420 + D3 minutes. This change is
equivalent to setting D1 = D2 = 0 in the simultaneous conditions, which yields

𝑥2 = 100 > 0
𝑥3 = 230 > 0 → −20 ≤ 𝐷3 ≤ ∞
𝑥6 = 20 + 𝐷3 ≥ 0

summarize the dual prices and their feasibility ranges for the

TOYCO model as follows:

Resource amount (minutes)

Resource Dual Feasible range minimum current maximum
price
Operation 1 1 −200 ≤ 𝐷1 ≤ 10 230 430 440
Operation2 2 −20 ≤ 𝐷1 ≤ 400 440 440 860
Operation 3 0 −20 ≤ 𝐷1 ≤ ∞ 400 420 ∞
It is important to notice that the dual prices will remain applicable for any

simultaneous changes that keep the solution feasible, even if the changes violate the
individual ranges. For example, the changes Dl = 30, D2 = -12, and D3 = 100, will
keep the solution feasible even though D1 = 30 violates the feasibility range
−200 ≤ 𝐷1 ≤ 10 as the following computations show

1 1
𝑥2 = 100 + − = 118 > 0
2 30 4 −12
𝑥3 = 23 −12 = 224 > 0
𝑥6 = 20 − 2 30 + −12 + (100) > 0

12
This means that the dual prices will remain applicable, and we can compute the new

optimum objective value from the dual prices as z = 1350 + 1(30) + 2(-12) +0(100) =
$1356

3. Algebraic Sensitivity Analysis-Objective Function

definition of reduced cost. to facilitate the explanation of the objective function

sensitivity analysis, first we need to define reduced costs. in the toyco model previous
example , the objective z-equation in the optimal tableau is

basic x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 solution
z 4 0 0 1 2 0 1350
x2 -1/4 1 0 1/2 -1/4 0 100
x3 3/2 0 1 0 1/2 0 230
x6 2 0 0 -2 1 1 20

z+4x1+x4+2x5=1350

or

z=1350-4x1-x4-2x5

the optimal solution does not recommend the production of toy trains (x1= 0). this
recommendation is confirmed by the information in the z-equation because each unit
increase in (xi) above its current zero level will decrease the value of z by $4 -
namely,z = 1350 - 4 x (1) - 1 x (0) 2 x (0) = $1346.

we can think of the coefficient of xl in the z-equation (= 4) as a unit cost because it

causes a reduction in the revenue z. but we know that x i has a unit revenue of $3 in
the original model. this relationship is formalized in the lp literature by defining the
reduced cost as
𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐞
= − 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭
𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭

in the original toyco model the revenue per unit for toy trucks $2) is less than that for
toy trains (= $3). yet the optimal solution elects to manufacture toy trucks (x2 = 100
units) and no toy trains (x1= 0). the reason for this (seemingly nonintuitive) result is
that the unit cost of the resources used by toy trucks (le., operations time) is smaller
than its unit price. the opposite applies in the case of toy trains. with the given
definition of reduced cost we can now see that an unprofitable variable (such as x1)
can be made profitable in two ways:

1. by increasing the unit revenue.

2. by decreasing the unit cost of consumed resources.

13
most real- life situations, the price per unit may not be a viable option because its
value is dictated by market conditions. the real option then is to reduce the
consumption of resources, perhaps by making the production process more efficient.
determination of the optimality ranges: we now turn our attention to determining the
conditions that will keep an optimal solution unchanged. the presentation is based on
the definition of reduced cost.
in the toyco model, let dt> dz, and d3 represent the change in unit revenues for
toy trucks, trains, and cars, respectively. the objective function then becomes

maximize z=(3+d1)x1+(2+d2)x2+(5+d3)x3
z-row in starting tableau appear as
basic x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 solution
z -3-d1 -2-d2 -5-d3 0 0 0 0

when we generate the simplex tableaus using the same sequence of entering and
leaving variables in the original model (before the changes dj are introduced), the
optimal iteration will appear as:
basic x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 solution
z 4-0.25d2+1.5d3-d1 0 0 1+0.5d2 2-0.25d2+0.5d3 0 1350+100d2+230d3
x2 -1/4 1 0 1/2 -1/4 0 100
x3 3/2 0 1 0 1/2 0 230
x6 2 0 0 -2 1 1 20

a convenient way for computing the new reduced cost is to add a new top row and a
ne w leftmost column to the optimum tableau, as shown by the shaded areas
below.

d1 d2 d3 0 0 0
basic x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 solution
1 z 4 0 0 1 2 0 1350
d2 x2 -1/4 1 0 1/2 -1/4 0 100
d3 x3 3/2 0 1 0 1/2 0 230
0 x6 2 0 0 -2 1 1 20

to explain to appear z-coefficient as: the new reduced cost for any variable (or the
value of z), multiply the elements of its column by the corresponding elements in the
leftmost column, add them up, and subtract the top-row element from the sum.

d1
left column x1 (x1-column*left-column)
1 4 4*1
d2 -1/4 -1/4*d2
d3 3/2 3/2*d3
0 2 2*0
reduced cost for x1=4-1/4d2+3/2d3-d1

applying the same rule to the solution column produces z = 1350 + l00d2 + 230d3.

14
 left column solution (x1-column*left-column)
1 1350 1350
d2 100 100*d2
d3 230 230*d3
0 20 20*0
reduced cost for z=1350+100d2+230d3

note: because we are dealing with a maximization problem, the current solution
remains optimal so long as the new reduced costs (z-equation coefficients) remain
nonnegative for all the nonbasic variables. we thus have the following optimality
conditions corresponding to nonbasic x1, x4, and x5:

1 3
4 − d2 + d3 − d1 ≥ 0
4 2
1
1 + d2 ≥ 0
2
1 1
2 − d2 + d3 ≥ 0
4 2

these conditions must be satisfied simultaneously to maintain the optimality of the

current optimum.
to illustrate the use of these conditions, suppose that the objective function of
toyco is changed from
maximize z 3x1 + 2x2 + 5x3
to
maximize z = 2xl + xz + 6x3
then, d1 = 2 - 3 =-$1, d2 = 1 - 2 =$1, and d3 = 6 – 5= $1. substitution in
the given conditions yields

1 3 1 3
4 − 4 d2 + 2 d3 − d1 = 4 − 4 ∗ 1 + 2 ∗ 1 − −1 ≥ 0 satisfied
1 1
1 + d2 = 1 + ∗ 1 ≥ 0 satisfied
2 2
1 1 1 1
2 − d2 + d3 = 2 − ∗ 1 + ∗ 1 ≥ 0 satisfied
4 2 4 2

the results show that the proposed changes will keep the current solution (xl = 0,
x2 = 100, x3 = 230) optimal. hence no further calculations are needed, except that
the objective value will change to z= 1350 + 100d2 + 230d3 == 1350 + 100 x -1 +
230 x 1 = $1480

the general optimality conditions can be used to determine the special case where the
changes dj occur one at a time instead of simultaneously. this analysis is equivalent to
considering the following three cases:

1. maximize z = (3 + d1)xl +2x2 + 5x3

2. maximize z = 3xl + (2 + d 2)x2 + 5x3
3. maximize z = 3xl + 2x2 + (5 + d3)x3

15
the individual conditions can be accounted for as special cases of the simultaneous
case.5
case 1. set d2 = d3 = 0 in the simultaneous conditions, which gives

4 − d1 ≥ 0 → −∞ < d1 ≤ 4

case 2. set d1 = d3 =0 in the simultaneous conditions, which gives

1
4 − d2 ≥ 0 → d2 ≤ 16
4
1
1 + d2 ≥ 0 → d2 ≥ −2
2
1
2 − d2 ≥ 0 → d2 ≤ 8
4
−2 ≤ d2 ≤8
case 3. set d1 = d2= 0 in the simultaneous conditions, which gives

3
4 + d3 ≥ 0 → d3 ≥ −8/3
2
1
2 + d3 ≥ 0 → d3 ≥ 4
2
−8/3 ≤ d3 ≤ ∞

the given individual conditions can be translated in terms of the total unit revenue.
for example, for toy trucks (variable x2), the total unit revenue is 2 + d2 and the
associated condition −2 ≤ d3 ≤ 8 translates to

−2 + 2 ≤ 2 + d2 ≤ 8 + 2
0$ ≤ uint revenue of toy truck ≤ 10$
this condition assumes that the unit revenues for toy trains and toy cars remain fixed
at $3 and $5, respectively.
the allowable range ($0, $10) indicates that the unit revenue of toy trucks (variable
x2) can be as low as $0 or as high as $10 without changing the current optimum,
xl= 0, xz = 100, x3 = 230. the total revenue will change to 1350 + 100d2, however

16