Correct answer: API Consumer requests access to API >> API Client implementes logic to call an API >> API routes the request to >> API Implementation
*****************************************
>> API consumer does not implement any logic to invoke APIs. It is just a role. So, the option stating "API Consumer implementes logic to call an API" is INVALID.
>> API Implementation does not route any requests. It is a final piece of logic where functionality of target systems is exposed. So, the requests should be routed to the API implementation by some other entity. So, the options stating "API Implementation routes the request to >> API" is INVALID
>> The statements in one of the options are correct but sequence is wrong. The sequence is given as "API Client implementes logic to call an API >> API Consumer requests access to API >> API routes the request to >> API Implementation". Here, the statements in the options are VALID but sequence is WRONG.
>> Right option and sequence is the one where API consumer first requests access to API on Anypoint Exchange and obtains client credentials. API client then writes logic to call an API by using the access client credentials requested by API consumer and the requests will be routed to API implementation via the API which is managed by API Manager.

Explanation
https://docs.mulesoft.com/api-manager/2.x/policy-mule3-client-id-based-policies

Correct answer: A higher number of discoverable API-related assets in the application network.
*****************************************
>> We do NOT get faster response times in fine-grained approach when compared to coarse-grained approach.
>> In fact, we get faster response times from a network having coarse-grained APIs compared to a network having fine-grained APIs model. The reasons are below.
Fine-grained approach:
1. will have more APIs compared to coarse-grained
2. So, more orchestration needs to be done to achieve a functionality in business process.
3. Which means, lots of API calls to be made. So, more connections will needs to be established. So, obviously more hops, more network i/o, more number of integration points compared to coarse-grained approach where fewer APIs with bulk functionality embedded in them.
4. That is why, because of all these extra hops and added latencies, fine-grained approach will have bit more response times compared to coarse-grained.
5. Not only added latencies and connections, there will be more resources used up in fine-grained approach due to more number of APIs.
That's why, fine-grained APIs are good in a way to expose more number of resuable assets in your network and make them discoverable. However, needs more maintenance, taking care of integration points, connections, resources with a little compromise w.r.t network hops and response times.

Explanation/Reference: https://docs.mulesoft.com/api-manager/2.x/policy-mule3-provided-policies