Hi, I need help with the following questions.

Question1. A pair of bank robbers, Bonnie and Clyde, have been caught. The police have enough evidence to convict them both on an unlicensed gun charge (which carries a sentence of one year) but suspect that they have been involved in a bank robbery (which carries a sentence of 20 years). The police need at least one of the two to confess to the bank robbery, so they lock the two in separate rooms and tell each of them the following: Right now, we can lock you up for 1 year for the unlicensed gun charge, BUT if you confess to the bank robbery and give evidence against your partner, you can go free but your partner will get 20 years in jail. If you both confess to the bank robbery, we won't need your evidence anymore and both of you will get a reduced sentence of 8 years. However, if your partner confesses first, then YOU will get 20 years in jail and your partner will go free. The decision for both Bonnie and Clyde can be described using the following matrix: Bonnie's decision Confess Stay silent Confess 8 years 20 years Clyde's 8 years 0 years decision Stay 0 years 1 year silent 20 years 1 year a) Explain why Bonnie's dominant strategy is to confess? Why Clyde's dominant strategy is to confess? b) If they would both cooperate and stay silent how many years would they sentenced to stay in prison? c) What do you think is the most likely outcome for them, cooperative or non- cooperative? How many years they will spend in prison? d) What does the prisoners' dilemma teach us about oligopolies? e) Why is game theory helpful for understanding markets with a few firms but not markets with many firms? Question 2 Comment on why game theory is helpful for understanding markets with a few firms but not markets with many firms