 In this video, we provide the solution to question number nine for practice exam three for math 1030 In which case at the time of the 2000 census, the state of California had a standard quota of 52.45 seats. Now under Adams method, California would get a portion 50 seats. And so which apportionment violation of paradox is this? Well, you'll notice that 50 seats is smaller than 52. 52 would be the lower quota for California. And since this apportionment method would give 50 seats to California, that would be an example of the lower quota violation. Now be aware that in the year 2000, the portionment was done by the Huntington Hill method, not by Adams method. So this did not occur, but if Adams method was used, this would be a demonstration of a lower quota violation.