To determine whether the bear population is proportionally related to the number of years after reintroduction, we need to evaluate the ratios of the bear population to the years based on the information from the table (which you didn't provide).
In general, to assess whether two quantities are proportional, you would look for consistent ratios between the two sets of values (i.e., the bear population and the years after reintroduction). If the ratios remain constant, then the relationship is proportional. However, if the ratios differ, it indicates that the relationship is not proportional.
Let’s analyze the options provided:
-
A states that the bear population does not have a proportional relationship because the ratios are equivalent. This is contradictory since if the ratios are equivalent, it indicates a proportional relationship.
-
B claims the bear population is proportional to the years because the ratios are equivalent. This is a valid statement if the ratios are indeed constant.
-
C argues that the bear population is not proportional because the ratio in the last row differs from the first two rows. If this is true (i.e., if the ratios are not consistent), then it's a reasonable argument against proportionality.
-
D contends the bear population is proportional because you are not equivalent, which is also contradictory, since a lack of equivalent ratios means they are not proportional.
Without specific data from the table, it's not possible to definitively agree with one of the options. However, based on the principle of proportionality:
- If the ratios of bear population to years after reintroduction are constant across all data points, then B would be the correct answer.
- If the last row presents a different ratio than the others, which negates consistency, then C would be correct.
So my final advice is to review the ratios in the table. If they are consistent, go with B; if not, choose C.