Summary:
The business requirements are to prevent duplicate leads and restrict editing/reassignment to the lead owner. A permissive OWD like Public Read/Write would allow any user to edit and reassign any lead, violating the core requirement. The most restrictive OWD is needed to enforce that only the owner can manage the lead, which in turn supports duplicate management by preventing unauthorized users from creating conflicting edits or reassignments.

Correct Option:

C. Implement a Private OWD on Lead.
This is the correct and only solution that enforces the "only edited/reassigned by the lead owner" requirement. A Private OWD means that by default, users can only view and edit the leads they own. This directly fulfills the requirement. To support collaboration and lead routing, queues should be used for assignment, and a lead conversion process should be established to transfer qualified leads to sales reps.

Incorrect Options:

A. Implement a Public Read Only/Transfer OWD on Lead.
This is incorrect. While "Read Only" prevents editing by others, the "Transfer" permission allows any user to reassign the lead to a new owner. This directly violates the requirement that only the lead owner should be able to reassign it.

B. Implement a Public Read-Only OWD on Lead.
This is closer but still insufficient. While it prevents other users from editing the lead, it does not prevent them from reassigning it. The lead owner would not have control over the ownership of their record, which is a key part of the requirement.

Reference:
Salesforce Help: Organization-Wide Sharing Defaults for Leads

Summary:
The requirement is to segment data access between two sales teams based on the type of Account (Person vs. Business) in an org with a Private Organization-Wide Default (OWD). The solution must automatically grant the retail sales team access to all Person Accounts, regardless of ownership, while continuing to restrict their access to Business Accounts. This requires a record-level sharing mechanism that distinguishes between the two account types.

Correct Option:

A. Create a criteria-based sharing rule giving the Retail Sales role access to Accounts of type PersonAccount.
This is the correct solution. A criteria-based sharing rule can use the isPersonAccount field as a filter to identify all Person Account records. This rule can then be configured to share those records with the Retail Sales role (and its subordinates). This automatically grants the required access to all retail customers without giving access to commercial ones.

Incorrect Options:

B. Create an owner-based sharing rule on AccountContactRelation to grant access to all account contact roles records owned by retail sales reps.
This is incorrect for several reasons. First, it focuses on the AccountContactRelation object, not the Account object itself. Second, an owner-based rule would only share records owned by the retail sales reps. The requirement is for them to see all retail customers, even those owned by other users (e.g., created by a call center). This solution fails to meet the core requirement.

C. Update the Retail Sales profile to grant access to Person Account record type.
This is incorrect because profiles control object-level permissions and record type assignment, not record-level access. Granting access to a record type allows a user to create records of that type, but with a Private OWD, they would still only be able to see the Person Accounts they own. It does not grant visibility to all Person Accounts in the org.

Reference:
Salesforce Help: Sharing Rules

Summary:
The requirement is to grant granular, record-specific Edit access to a private custom object based on a many-to-many relationship defined in a junction object. The solution must dynamically grant access when a user is added as a presenter and revoke it when they are removed. This requires a programmatic solution that can create and delete sharing records in response to changes in the junction object.

Correct Option:

C. Trigger on Presenter junction object that uses Apex Managed sharing to add or remove access to the related Presentation record.
This is the correct and most robust solution. An Apex trigger on the Presenter__c junction object can fire after insert and after delete. When a new junction record is created, the trigger can create an Apex Managed Share (Presentation__Share) granting the specified user Read/Edit access to the related Presentation__c record. When the junction record is deleted, the trigger can find and delete the corresponding share, dynamically managing access.

Incorrect Options:

A. Give Edit rights to the Presentation record via a Permission set that is given to the Presenters for a record.
This is incorrect and not scalable. Permission sets grant object-level or org-wide permissions, not record-level access. You cannot use a permission set to grant a user Edit rights to one specific Presentation__c record without granting them access to all records or using a different mechanism for the record access itself.

B. Trigger on Presenter junction object that adds the user to the Sales Team for the Presentation record.
This is incorrect because "Sales Team" is specific to the Opportunity object. For a custom object like Presentation__c, there is no standard "Team" feature. The equivalent functionality for a custom object is achieved through Apex Managed Sharing, as described in option C.

Reference:
Salesforce Help: Apex Managed Sharing

Summary:
This requirement has two key parts: 1) Ad-hoc, temporary sharing of opportunities between specific sales managers, and 2) Automatic expiration of that access on a specific date. The first part can be achieved with manual sharing. However, the second part—automatically revoking that access—cannot be accomplished with standard sharing tools. A scheduled, automated process is needed to remove the manual shares on the specified date.

Correct Option:

B. Scheduled Apex job to remove access.
This is the correct solution for the expiration requirement. Sales managers can use standard manual sharing to grant each other access to opportunities as needed. An administrator can then create a Scheduled Apex job that is configured to run on the first day of the new fiscal year. This Apex job would query and delete all the relevant OpportunityShare records with a RowCause of 'Manual', thereby automatically revoking the temporary access.

Incorrect Options:

A. Apex sharing to share opportunities with sales managers.
While Apex Managed Sharing can create shares, it is overly complex for an ad-hoc user request. It would require building a custom interface for managers to initiate the sharing. More importantly, Apex sharing on its own does not have a built-in expiration mechanism, so it fails the second requirement without also being paired with a scheduled cleanup job (Option B).

C. Sharing rules to share opportunities with sales managers.
Sharing rules are for broad, group-based sharing (e.g., "share all opportunities owned by the 'Western Sales' team with the 'Eastern Sales' team"). They are not designed for the ad-hoc, individual record-sharing requested by the managers. Furthermore, sharing rules are permanent and cannot be set to automatically expire on a specific calendar date.

Reference:
Salesforce Help: Apex Scheduler

Summary:
The requirement is to create specialized list views and restrict their visibility to a specific, defined group of executives. The solution must be manageable and scalable, allowing administrators to easily control which executives have access by managing a single group, rather than performing individual user assignments for each list view.

Correct Option:

C. Share the list views with the appropriate Public Group.
This is the correct and most flexible solution. A Public Group named "Large Deal Specialists" or similar should be created, and the relevant executives should be added as members. The sensitive list views are then shared with this Public Group. This centralizes management; adding or removing an executive from the group automatically grants or revokes their access to all list views shared with that group.

Incorrect Options:

A. Share the list views with the appropriate role in the Role Hierarchy.
This is less ideal. The role hierarchy should reflect the organizational reporting structure, not functional specializations. Sharing with a role would grant access to all users in that role and, crucially, all users in subordinate roles, which would likely over-share the sensitive list views beyond the intended small group of specialists.

B. Share the list views with the appropriate individual users.
While technically possible, this is not a scalable or efficient solution. Administrators would need to manually manage the sharing for each list view by selecting multiple individual users. This becomes error-prone and time-consuming as the number of list views or executives changes. Public Groups are the designated tool for this group-based management.

Reference:
Salesforce Help: Control List View Access