Key idea: this is a statement-truth question on covariance. Recognise that the inner expectation in S1 is exactly Cov[X,Y], and that the RHS of S2 is an expectation of a non-negative quantity.
Why these methods apply:
- S1 is a claim about an inequality involving a square of a covariance-like term and a product of variances. The standard tool is the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality for random variables.
- S2 equates Cov[X,Y] with an expectation involving absolute values. The standard tool is to check the sign behaviour: covariance can be negative, but an expectation of a product of absolute values cannot.
Step 1 — decode S1:
By definition
E[(X−EX)(Y−EY)]=Cov[X,Y].
So S1 is the claim: there exist X,Y with (Cov[X,Y])2>Var[X]Var[Y].
Step 2 — apply Cauchy–Schwarz:
For any two random variables U,V with finite second moments
(E[UV])2≤E[U2]E[V2].
Choose U=X−EX and V=Y−EY. Then E[U2]=Var[X], E[V2]=Var[Y], and E[UV]=Cov[X,Y]. Hence
(Cov[X,Y])2≤Var[X]Var[Y]
for every pair X,Y. Strict ">" is impossible, so S1 is FALSE.
Step 3 — decode S2:
Cov[X,Y]=E[(X−EX)(Y−EY)], which can be negative.
The RHS of S2 is E[∣X−EX∣∣Y−EY∣], an expectation of a non-negative random variable, so it is always ≥0.
Therefore S2 cannot hold for all X,Y.
Step 4 — concrete counterexample for S2:
Let X be any non-constant zero-mean random variable and set Y=−X. Then EX=EY=0
Cov[X,Y]=E[X(−X)]=−Var[X]<0
while
E[∣X∣∣Y∣]=E[X2]=Var[X]>0.
The two sides disagree, so S2 is FALSE.
Conclusion: both S1 and S2 are false.
Common trap: reading S1 as "some cleverly chosen X,Y beat the inequality" — but Cauchy–Schwarz is universal, no choice of X,Y can violate it. Another trap: forgetting that absolute values destroy the sign information in S2.
Verification: plug U=X−EX,V=Y−EY into Cauchy–Schwarz — the inequality (Cov[X,Y])2≤Var[X]Var[Y] is recovered exactly, confirming S1 is false; the Y=−X counterexample confirms S2 is false.
Answer: option (D) — Both S1 and S2 are false.