VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
30moreptsplease wrote:
While D is clearly the best answer of the available choices, this answer doesn't logically explain the paradox.
Sure, if a drought is so bad that there is no water at all, there won't be any algae.
However, the question asks us to explain the contrast between higher levels of algae inslow-moving rivers and lower levels invery slow-moving rivers . Here, we are (or should be) looking for a reason to explain why algae levels might not be inversely correlated with river speeds in
Sure, if a drought is so bad that there is no water at all, there won't be any algae.
However, the question asks us to explain the contrast between higher levels of algae inslow-moving rivers and lower levels invery slow-moving rivers . Here, we are (or should be) looking for a reason to explain why algae levels might not be inversely correlated with river speeds in
...
.jpg)
