In a Linked List-based Queue, what is the worst case of insertion time complexity? Use an example to demonstrate.

a) Given a typical Queue q with elements [E,D,C,B,A] (where Front/left of Queue at E and Rear/right of Queue at A), determine and list elements of the updated Queue in the similar form (Front/left and Rear/right), after the following execution: q.enqueue( q. dequeue() ) q. enqueue( G ) q.dequeue() b) Given a typical Stack s with elements [T,W,X,Y,Z] (where Top/left of Stack at T) and a typical Queue q with elements [E,D,C,B,A] (where Front/left of Queue at E and Rear/right of Queue at A), determine and list elements of the updated Stack and those of the updated Queue in their similar forms after the following execution: q. enqueue( s.pop() ) s.push( R ) q.enqueue( s. peek () ) s. push( q.dequeue() ) q.enqueue( s. pop() ) OP

Given that we discovered a circular array implementation for queues to be favorable, does this suggest we would find a circularly-linked list to be similarly advantageous? Why should I/shouldn't l?

in Java  3. Implement an the ADT List (refer to the LAB 3-1)-Based of the ADT Queue and verify ""isEmpty()",  "enqueue()", "dequeue()", "dequeueAll()", and "peak()" operations.