In many parts of the world conflicts exist between farmers or ranchers and wild carnivores. conservation biologists argue for the importance of the carnivores in the proper functioning of the ecosystem. ranchers argue that no one owns the carnivores, so they have a right to kill any predator that attacks or might attack their livestock.

analyze this conflict from the perspective of either the conservation biologist or the rancher. your discussion should relate to hardin’s idea of the "tragedy of the commons."

Let’s analyze this conflict from the perspective of a conservation biologist.

Explanation:

Conservation biologist knows the value of all species naturally present in a given ecosystem and the need to maintain balance in numbers of each species. Thus, uncontrolled hunting of wild carnivores may lead to reduction in their number and ultimately endanger the given species of carnivores in a particular country.

Meanwhile, conservation biologist understands that certain people perceive commons, as a shared resource system, in a different way. In particular, people with particular interest and needs (farmers and ranchers), affected by the natural functioning of this system. From their perspective, resources that do not belong to any other particular individual and which are considered to be common, can be neglected if they interfere with farmer business. If the commons are unregulated it can lead to a greater abuse, thus the 'tragedy of commons'.

d. i assume the underlined word is "role." reformat if it isn't.

explanation:

role is closest to part because when replacing words, "playing a vital decision," "playing a vital activity," and "playing a vital dollar" don't make logical sense. the only meaningful choice is "playing a vital part."

this fits one of merriam-webster's definitions of role: "a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process."