In the following method, where is there the highest likelihood of the garbage collector being invoked (consider object reachability within methodA)? class HappyGarbage01 { public static void main(String args[]) { HappyGarbage01 h = new HappyGarbage01(); h.methodA(); // line 6 } Object methodA() { Object obj1 = new Object(); // line 9 Object[] obj2 = new Object[1]; // line 10 obj2[0] = obj1; // line 11 obj1 = null; // line 12 return obj2[0]; // line 13 } }

Introduction / Context:
GC questions often trick you into thinking that setting a local to null frees an object. In reality, reachability from any root keeps the object alive, including references inside arrays that are still in use (or returned).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• obj1 references a new Object.
• obj2 is an array that stores that same reference at index 0 and the method returns obj2[0].

Concept / Approach:
Because methodA returns a reference to the original object via the array element, that object remains reachable when control returns to main. The local variable obj1 becoming null is irrelevant if another reference (inside obj2) is returned. The array itself becomes eligible only if it is not returned; here, we do not return the array, only the element value, so the array is eligible upon method exit, not before.

Step-by-Step Reasoning:

Verification / Alternative check:
If the method returned null instead, then the array and object could become eligible on return if no other references exist.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options A–C ignore continuing reachability; Option E wrongly assumes nulling a local frees the object.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating local scope end or nulling a local with object death; forgetting that returning a reference prolongs object lifetime.

Final Answer:
Garbage collector is not invoked within methodA() because returned references keep objects reachable.