Applying the concept of opportunity cost to the pollution of a lake, an economist probably would conclude that: pollution should be eliminated as long as the opportunity cost of a cleanup exceeds the cost of the resources required for the cleanup. all pollution in the lake should be eliminated regardless of cost. pollution should be eliminated as long as the benefit from a cleanup exceeds the opportunity cost. no pollution in the lake should be eliminated regardless of benefit.

The correct answer is c) pollution should be eliminated as long as the benefit from the cleanup exceeds the opportunity costs.

Explanation:

The opportunity cost is presented in situations where there are two or more good options, so the company must choose the option with more benefits leaving the second one that is known as the opportunity cost. The opportunity cost must have lower profits than the option selected.

For example, in the case of the pollution of a lake, the economist concluded that the elimination of pollution should be chosen if the benefit is more significant than the second-best option.

I hope this information can help you.

i believe it’s b because the rest don’t make sense

answer; complain or request hazard correction from your employer;