Question

Which excerpt from Winona LaDuke’s "A Case for Waawaatesi” best appeals to readers’ logic?

Think of it this way, your ancestors navigated by the stars, and today most people won’t walk outside without a GPS. That’s a crazy loss of direction or skill at some level for sure.
Nocturnal animals sleep during the day and are active at night. Light pollution radically alters their world by turning night into day.
It’s things like frogs, who make it their business to croak at night, particularly when mating. Artificial lights disrupt their mojo and that means less frogs and reduced populations.
Migratory birds depend on cues from properly timed seasonal schedules. Artificial lights can cause them to migrate too early or too late and miss ideal climate conditions for nesting, foraging and other behaviors

Answer 1

Excerpt 4 best appeals to readers’ logic.

Why: it states a clear premise (migratory birds depend on timing cues), explains a causal mechanism (artificial lights disrupt those cues), and shows concrete consequences (mistimed migration leads to missed nesting/foraging conditions). That chain of cause-and-effect is a strong logical (logos) argument.

Notes on the others: 2 is logical but more general; 1 is anecdotal/emotional; 3 uses colloquial language and relies more on pathos than precise cause-and-effect.