Answer:
I would have to say invalid.
Explanation:
There is not enough information to have a fully valid argument.
Answer:
The correct answer is B.bargain in order to obtain the property rights of the gopher habitat.
Explanation:
In economics, the Coase Theorem states that in a market where transaction costs are negligible, a dispute between parties where property rights are involved will lead to a bargaining process where the party that gives the most value to whatever it's in dispute will end up winning rights over that property. In this case, the environmental group assigns great value to protecting the habitat of the Wyoming pocker gopher, but they can only fully secure its well-being by securing property rights over said habitat, and given their standing, they can expect to bargain or negotiate successfully. Any other option, like protesting, boycotting, or lobbying, won't be good enough to achieve their goals.
I’m pretty sure you meant to post this question under the Biology category. The answer to your question is: Fault Line.
