Answer: (i) The LR(1) parser for G has S–R conflicts

Explanation — LALR vs LR relationship

• LALR(1) parsers are built by merging the states of a canonical LR(1) parser that share the same core (same items, different lookaheads).
• Merging states can create a reduce–reduce (R–R) conflict (two different reduce actions that were separated by lookahead now share a cell).
• However, state-merging cannot create a new shift–reduce (S–R) conflict. Intuitively, a shift action exists on a terminal $t$ in a state only if $t$ is in that state's core in the LR(1) automaton too. So if the LALR(1) table has an S–R conflict, the same conflict must have already been present in the LR(1) table.

Therefore the correct statement is the one in option (i) — the LR(1) parser for $G$ has S–R conflicts (with LAR(1) in the paper being a typo for LR(1)).

$$\boxed{\text{(i) The LR(1) parser for G has S.R conflicts}}$$