Many years ago, a wetland was filled in to build a baseball field and playground. Now the town proposes to restore the area to become a shallow pond surrounded by a marsh. What do you think are the strongest arguments for and against this plan?

The restoration of the area to become a shallow pond surrounded by a

marsh in place of a baseball field isn't good enough and the arguments

against it include:

The baseball field  serves as recreational facility in the area and it helps

individuals to perform exercises which is vital for a healthy body. When this is removed it means a decrease in exercises and health of the inhabitants of the community.

Recreational activities also helps to curb various vices and decrease in crime rate due to the occupation of the mind with something meaningful rather than nothing.

Read more on link

baseball field and playground remain on the place and pond will not to be built.

Explanation:

Baseball field and playground are recreational places in the cities which increases the physical activities and health of the children and adults living nearby. If these places are removed from cities, it has many negative effects on the people of the society especially on children. If a pond will be built in place of these baseball field and playground, there is no better effect on the people only increase the beautification of the area. So health of the children is more important than beautification of the area.

the correct answer is sex-linked recessive.

i just took the test