Which of the following statements best summarizes the factors that affect population growth? A. When resources are available, populations grow until they reach carrying capacity.

B. The more limiting factors affect a population, the greater the population growth.

C. The carrying capacity will decrease when there are no limiting factors affecting the population.

C

Explanation:

Since there's nothing keeping the population increasing it won't decrease it will keep increasing and using resources.

A

Explanation:

Before we try to answer the question lets define a few key terms

Key Terms:

Carrying capacity - The max population that can be sustained by the amount of resources in a specific environment

Limited factor are usually expressed as a lack of a particular resource.

Now lets look back at the answer choices

For A,

A. When resources are available, populations grow until they reach carrying capacity.

This statement makes sense because with available resources, a population will continue to increase until the amount of resources isn't enough for the population, in other words the population will increase until its reached its carrying capacity. So this might be the answer, however lets look at the other answer choices just in case.

For b,

B. The more limiting factors affect a population, the greater the population growth.

This statement would not be true because limiting factors usually are expressed as a lack of a particular resources. A lack of resources ( more limiting factors ) would lead to a population decreasing, not increasing, therefore B is not a true statement

For C,

C. The carrying capacity will decrease when there are no limiting factors affecting the population.

This statement would not be true because if there are no limiting factors ( which remember are expressed as a lack of particular resource ) the carrying capacity ( or the max population that can be sustained by the amount of resources in a specific environment ) would not change at all because there are no limiting factors changing the availability of the resources, therefore C is not the answer.

"1. it should be, it has been for about 20 years, and it's really not much different in the end than breeding animals to have particular traits. there are always concerns about genetically engineered animals/plants affecting the environment in unexpected negative ways, but i can't think of an example where the fears didn't turn out to be baseless.  

first, as you point out, it would be a great advance in pharmacology, to be able to tailor drugs and their doses to me. the pros involve better medical treatment. the cons involve privacy issues like insurance companies denying coverage to people with genetic risk factors. looking at dna markers wouldn't affect the frequency of genetic diseases, but it would allow detection of them earlier. and ok, actually i suppose that if people used this information to avoid having children with genetic diseases, some might decrease in frequency."