Help me this is science question

Claim(One Sentence): Overpopulation and Underpopulation can lead to the demise of particular species, however if the population remains consistent, there is a consistency in the food chain.

Claim: The more grass, the more rabbits. This is because there is abundant grass for rabbits to feed off of. Snakes eat rabbits, the more rabbits, the more food for snakes. And therefore, helps sustain the population of snakes. Hawks eat snakes. The more snakes the more food for the hawks. And the more hawks there are, because there is more food to provide for more hawks. The same pattern goes if there is a decrease. Overpopulation of one species could also cause a disruption and a decrease or a wipe out of a species in a a certain area.

Evidence: Lets look at time 0.0 and time 3.0. Time 0, has a grass population, of 27303 with 2567 rabbits,278 snakes, and 41 hawks. Looking at time 3.0, there is more grass, 28353, less rabbits, 2399, more snakes, 316, and less hawks, 28. This supports my claim because there is a relatively consistent population of rabbits, because there is an abundance of grass. However, in time 3 we see that there are less rabbits. This is because there are more snakes, and the more snakes, the less rabbits, because more rabbits are being consumed at a higher pace.  This is the same with the snakes. The more hawks the more snakes being consumed, but the less hawks the less snakes being consumed.

Reasoning: Population affects population. Meaning that the more of something could mean the less of something.

Scientific Explanation: Final CER: Population greatly affects changes in the food chain. There could be too much of something that could lead to the demise of something else. If everything is equally balanced, there is an abundance of everything, and the food chain can continue smoothly. However if there is an underpopulation, animals die out, and the ones above them in the chain also die out because there is not enough to feed off of.

Explanation:

Hoped this helps.

a fossil fuel is a fuel formed by natural processes, such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms, containing energy originating in ancient photosynthesis.[1] the age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years.[2] fossil fuels contain high percentages of carbon and include petroleum, coal, and natural gas.[3] other commonly used derivatives include kerosene and propane. fossil fuels range from volatile materials with low carbon to hydrogen ratios like methane, to liquids like petroleum, to nonvolatile materials composed of almost pure carbon, like anthracite coal. methane can be found in hydrocarbon fields either alone, associated with oil, or in the form of methane clathrates.

the theory that fossil fuels formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth's crust over millions of years was first introduced by andreas libavius "in his 1597 alchemia [alchymia]" and later by mikhail lomonosov "as early as 1757 and certainly by 1763".[4] the first use of the term "fossil fuel" was by the german chemist caspar neumann, in english translation in 1759.[5]

in 2017 the world's primary energy sources consisted of petroleum (34%), coal (28%), natural gas (23%), amounting to an 85% share for fossil fuels in primary energy consumption in the world.[6] non-fossil sources in 2006 included nuclear (8.5%), hydroelectric (6.3%), and others (geothermal, solar, tidal, wind, wood, waste) amounting to 0.9%.[7] world energy consumption was growing at about 2.3% per year. in 2015 about 18% of worldwide consumption was from renewable sources.[8]

the correct answer is b