Paulo makes the argument that the asteroid strike that likely contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs was a short-tem environmental change because it happened so quickly.

Which is the best analysis of Paulo’s position?

He is correct; it happened in just a few seconds.
He is correct; it did not cause any long-term changes.
He is incorrect; it caused long-term changes.
He is incorrect; impacts are not environmental changes.

3rd one.

Explanation:

I would say that because after the immediate results of the impact, the dust and debris settled into the atmosphere, blocking out the sun and creating a nuclear winter of sorts. I'd say the winter killed more dinosaurs than the asteroid impact.

C) He is incorrect; it caused long-term changes

Explanation:

it is prolly d and c and f

the corpus luteum secretes estrogens and progesterone. the latter hormone causes changes in the uterus that make it more suitable for implantation of the fertilized ovum and the nourishment of the embryo. if the egg is not fertilized, the corpus luteum becomes inactive after 10–14 days, and menstruation occurs.

i hope this : )