Question

which excerpt from winona ladukes \a case for wanwaatesi\ best appeals to readers logic?
think of it this way, your ancestors navigated by the stars, and today most people wont walk outside without a gps. thats a crazy loss of direction or skill at some level for sure.
nocturnal animals sleep during the day and are active at night. light pollution radically alters their world by turning night into day.
its things like frogs, who make it their business to croak at night, particularly when mating. artificial lights disrupt their mojo and that means less frogs and reduced populations.
migratory birds depend on cues from properly timed seasonal schedules. artificial lights can cause them to migrate too early or too late and miss ideal climate conditions for nesting, foraging and other behaviors.

Explanation:

• The first option uses an emotional and comparative approach (ancestors vs. modern people) which is more of an appeal to pathos (emotion) rather than logos (logic).
• The second option simply states a fact about nocturnal animals and light pollution but doesn't present a logical argument with cause - effect in a detailed way that builds a case.
• The third option gives an example (frogs) but the connection between artificial lights and "mojo" is a bit of a colloquial and less - strictly logical term.
• The fourth option clearly presents a logical chain: Migratory birds depend on seasonal cues. Artificial lights disrupt these cues. As a result, they migrate at the wrong time and miss ideal conditions. This is a well - structured logical argument.

Answer:

Migratory birds depend on cues from properly timed seasonal schedules. Artificial lights can cause them to migrate too early or too late and miss ideal climate conditions for nesting, foraging and other behaviors.