Violating WARP or not? If the only information we had about Goldie were that she chooses the bundle (6, 6) when prices are (6, 7) and she chooses the bundle (10, 0) when prices are (5, 5), then we could conclude that

a.
the bundle (6, 6) is revealed preferred to (10, 0) but there is no evidence that she violates WARP.

b.
Goldie violates WARP.

c.
the bundle (10, 0) is revealed preferred to (6, 6) and she violates WARP.

d.
neither bundle is revealed preferred to the other.

e.
the bundle (10, 0) is revealed preferred to (6, 6) but there is no evidence that she violates WARP.

My attempt:
Obvious conclusion to this question is that (6,6) bundle is preferred to (10,0) bundle when prices are (6,7) but when the prices are (5,5) everything is the other way round thus it violates the WARP whereas the correct answer as stated in the questionbank is A why is that?
When she chooses the bundle (6,6) when the prices are (6,7), she spends 
\begin{equation*}
6*6+6*7=78
\end{equation*}
The total price of the bundle (10,0) given this price system is 
\begin{equation*}
10*6+0*7=60&lt;78
\end{equation*}
Therefore she could afford the bundle (10,0) if she wanted to. The fact that she chooses (6,6) reveals that she prefers (6,6) to (10,0).

Given the price system (5,5), when she chooses the bundle (10,0) she spends
\begin{equation*}
10*5+0*5=50
\end{equation*}
And the price of the bundle (6,6) would be
\begin{equation*}
6*5+6*5=60
\end{equation*}
Therefore (6,6) is not necessarily affordable if her budget is comprised between 50 and 59. This is why (10,0) is not revealed preferred to (6,6) in that case, and thus there is no evidence that she violates WARP.