$9.$Question $9$ Which of the following ARE NOT bargaining tactics that you may be confronted with by your opposites at the table? $1$ point Linkage Extreme anchoring Carpet selling Red herring White elephant Good cop$/$bad cop My hands are tied My lips are sealed The "icing on the cake" $10.$Question $10$ Among the actions listed below, which one should you take when faced with the "ultimatum" tactic your opposite might use? $1$ point Re$-$orient your opposite to the points you had initially agreed to discuss or gain time in order to assess the meaning and cost of the new item on the agenda. First, resist hasty reaction and instead compare with your best solution away from the table. Next, thank your opposite for the offer and then propose a higher figure than your Plan B$,$ as your own "last offer". Remain calm and do not give way to pressure, do not mix the People and the Problem. Stick to the facts and insist on rules of the game. Finally, if your plan $"$B$"\text{'}$ enables it$,$ leave the room in the first meeting. $11.$Question $11$ In a negotiation it is crucial to have effectively prepared your Solution Away From the Table $($SAFT$)$ Why? Select the right answers among those below. $1$ point It will enable you to make a deal only if the solutions traded at the table are more interesting than the solution away from the table. It will enable you to make a comparison between what seems to be disappointing solutions at the table with the reality you will be faced with when leaving the room without a deal. It will enable you to set discussions with your opposite into motion again by talking about the "what if there was no deal? What will we do$?"$ scenario. It provides the main ingredient for the power balance around the table and will enable you, if you have a comfortable SAFT, to be stronger in your demands at the table because the other negotiator will have to match your expectations. Once effectively prepared, it will enable you to fine$-$tune and adjust your mandate to the various interests of the stakeholders around the table, thus generating the best possible scenario for a mutually agreed solution even if you do not reach your principal's expectations.