No: arbitrary ties can produce an assignment that is not Pareto optimal. A two-student counterexample suffices. Give the first student value for both rooms; give the second student value for and for . If the first student breaks the tie by taking , the second must take , and the utility vector is .
Swapping the rooms gives utility vector , so it is a Pareto improvement. Both choices in the original run maximized the corresponding student's available room value. The strict-ranking argument from (a) fails because the first student's utility need not decrease when that student's room changes.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.