What was the problem with the notion of “separate but equal”? Separate facilities were always equal, so it did not make sense to keep them separated.

Separate facilities were almost never equal.

Separate facilities were too difficult and expensive to maintain, so the Supreme Court passed a bill to ban “separate but equal” in all states.

There was nothing wrong with the notion of separate but equal.

Separate facilities were almost never equal.

Explanation:

the answer might be either a or c. can't be too sure , because i searched the web, but no valid answers came through.

this statement is true.

forests are public goods, available for everybody. when usage of such a good becomes interesting for consumers and its usage increases, there can be a risk of overexploitation. it is a non rival good therefore, if one person consumes the good it does not reduce the availability for subsequent consumers.

these caracteristics require the establishment of measures in order to prevent the destruction of a commonly owned space, for example, to restrict the amount of people that have access to the same time.