Answer:
The correct answer would be A. a decrease in the number of producers.
Human activities like construction of roads, parking lots, buildings et cetera lead to the deforestation due to which producers like grass, plants, trees, et cetera are removed from the area.
Thus, the number of producers is adversely reduced.
Consequently, less amount of mass and energy are available at a primary trophic level.
lighter and stronger than previous models that they can sell at a higher price.
Which statement describes how a risk would be factored into a cost-benefit
analysis?
A. The cost of the materials to make the frames would be added to
potential improvements in consumer safety.
B. A reduction in employee safety would be added to the increase in
sales of the bicycle frames.
C. The ecological damage of mining the materials would be
subtracted from the profits made by selling the bicycle frames.
D. The money spent manufacturing the frames would be subtracted
from the profits made by selling the bicycle frames.
Cost-benefit analysis has been defined as the approach used to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the choices. The ecological damages must be subtracted from selling profits. Thus, option C is correct.
Cost-benefit analysis has been defined as the estimation of the cost and the profits in economical terms. It allows the determination of the monetary benefit gained by the manufacturing, production, and selling of the products.
To manufacture the bicycle frame the monetary benefit can be estimated by subtracting ecological damages for material mining from the profits earned by selling the frame of the bicycle. It gives the idea of how much it cost and benefits the maker.
Therefore, option C. (profits - ecological damage) gives a cost-benefit analysis.
Learn more about cost-benefit analysis, here:
#SPJ2
C. The egological damage of mining the materials would be subtracted from the profits made by selling the bicycle frames
Answer:
C. Attracting
Explanation:
The "light" attracts prey to the anglerfish.
Answer:
false
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it seems that this statement is false. Two variable only have a casual relationship if one of the variables causes the other one to exist, which does not seem to be the case in this situation. Instead this situation can be considered as a correlated relationship as a change in one variable influences the other.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
a. glaciers
b. flowing water
c. an atmosphere that contains oxygen
d. an orbit created by the force of gravity