Because the 20,000canonlybespentonce,choosingoneoptionmeansgivinguptheother—its∗∗opportunitycost∗∗.∗∗Buyingthenewoven∗∗wouldgivethebakery∗∗morebakingcapacity,fasterserviceandpossiblylowerrunningcosts∗∗,improvingtheexistingshop;butifthecurrentbakeryisnotalreadysellingout,theextracapacitymaybewasted,andtheopportunitycostisthenewcustomersasecondbranchcouldhavereached.∗∗Openingasecondbranch∗∗would∗∗reachnewcustomersinadifferentarea,raisetotalsalesandspreadrisk∗∗acrosstwosites;butitbrings∗∗higherongoingcosts∗∗(rent,wages),is∗∗hardertomanageandcontrol∗∗,andisriskyifdemandatthenewlocationisuncertain—anditsopportunitycostistheaddedcapacityandefficiencytheovenwouldhavegiven.∗∗Conclusion:∗∗thebestchoice∗∗dependsonwhethertheexistingbakeryisalreadyatfullcapacity∗∗.Ifitisregularlysellingeverythingitbakes,abiggerovenaddslittle,so∗∗openingthesecondbranch∗∗isthebetteruseofthe20,000 because it unlocks new demand. If the current shop still has spare capacity and steady-but-limited demand, the oven is the safer, cheaper investment. On balance, for a small bakery wanting to grow sales, the second branch is likely better provided market research shows enough demand in the new area to cover its higher running costs.