Explain what a rationalizable strategy is.

Module 5 Game Theory Discussion PurposeThis assignment is designed to provide you with the opportunity to communicate about technical and abstract material in a clear and straightforward manner. You will spend some time each week writing up a response to a question/prompt, and then posting that on a discussion board that your peers will review. By doing this each week, you’ll get practice writing about technical matters. DirectionsHere is the prompt. In 500 words, write an answer to the following question:Discussion PromptWhat are the Nash equilibria in the following game?Player 2FGHB4, 82, 610, 1Player 1C3, 25, 37, 2D1, 95, 13, 6E2, 23, 62, 2In your answer, be sure to complete the following tasks:Explain what a rationalizable strategy is.Explain why picking rationalizable strategies can go wrong.Explain the Nash solution concept.Explain what kind of equilibria the Nash solution concept will predict.Explain how to calculate the Nash equilibria in a matrix-form game.Say which strategy profiles in the above game are Nash equilibria, and explain why those particular profiles are the Nash equilibria.Next week, you will review each other’s answers to this question. To review the assignment, you will basically check that your peer completed each of the tasks — (a) through (f) — listed above, and you will assign 1 point for each completed task. To make this explicit, you will use the rubric below to assign points.Click the Reply button below to post your response. SubmissionThe deadline for your initial response posting is Sunday 11:59 p.m. Peer reviews will begin in next week’s module and be due the next Sunday 11:59 p.m. See the next Module for more detailed instructions. GradingIn next week’s module, one of your tasks will be to go back and review what your peers wrote. The rubric that you will use to review each other’s answers is as follows. You can also click on the Options icon at the top right corner of this forum (three dots) and select the Show Rubric button. TaskPointsCriteria a 1Did the author explain what a rationalizable strategy is, and does their answer match the lectures/handouts/textbook? b 1Did the author explain why picking rationalizable strategies can go wrong, and does their answer match the lectures/handouts/textbook? c 1Did the author explain the Nash solution concept, and does their answer match the lectures/handouts/textbook? d 1Did the author explain what kind of equilibria the Nash solution concept will predict, and does their answer match the lectures/handouts/textbook? e 1Did the author explain how to calculate the Nash equilibria in a matrix-form game, and does their answer match the lectures/handouts/textbook? f1Did the author say which strategy profiles in the provided game are Nash equilibria, did they explain why those particular profiles are the Nash equilibria, and does their answer match the lectures/handouts/textbook?So, you will be awarded 1 point for completing each of the tasks (a)–(f), to earn a total of 6 points. To ensure that you get all 6 points, make sure to write clearly and concisely, and make it very obvious to your reader that you have in fact answered each of (a)–(f).Be straightforward and honest, and write in as simple a way as possible. We don’t care for fancy words and flourish in the math and/or business world. This isn’t a poetry contest. We want you to you to get straight to the point and just speak simply and directly.All Game Theory Discussions will contribute 30% towards your overall grade. Page 3 of 7 in Module 5