4. In Case 1 for Greetings, the overhead allocations using a traditional volume- based approach were $3.36 for Lance Armstrong, $4.48 for John Elway, and $5.60 for Lambeau Field. The total product costs from Case I were Lance Armstrong $17.36, John Elway $33.48, and Lambeau Field $48.10. The overhead allocation rate for unframed prints, such as the unframed Lance Armstrong print in question 3, decreased under ABC compared to the amount of overhead that was allocated under the tradi- tional approach in Case 1. Why is this the case? What are the potential implications for the company? 5. Explain why the overhead cost related to website optimization was first divided into two categories (unframed prints and framed prints) and then allocated based on number of prints. 6. When allocating the cost of website optimization, the decision was made to initially allocate the cost across two categories (unframed prints and framed prints) rather than three cat- egories (unframed prints, steel-framed prints, and wood-framed prints with matting). Dis- cuss the pros and cons of splitting the cost between two categories rather than three. 7. Discuss the implications of using operating capacity as the cost driver rather than the expected units sold when allocating fixed overhead costs. 8. (a) Allocate the overhead to the three product categories (unframed prints, steel- framed prints, and wood-framed prints with matting), assuming that the estimate of the expected units sold is correct and the actual amount of overhead incurred equaled the estimated amount of $375,200. (b) Calculate the total amount of overhead allocated. Explain why the total overhead of $375,200 was not allocated, even though the estimate of sales was correct. What are the implications of this for management