Questions: Why is competition considered a negative outcome for both parties involved? There is no impact because resources are always plentiful and unlimited. Resources are limited, so they must be shared and no one gets as much as they could otherwise. Competition leads to favorable circumstances for all, especially when resources run out. It results in mutual benefit for both parties because all animals love to share their resources.

The answer is: Resources are limited, so they must be shared and no one gets as much as they could otherwise.

This option is incorrect because resources are not always plentiful and unlimited. In reality, many resources are finite, which is why competition arises in the first place.

This option is correct. When resources are limited, competition occurs because each party is trying to maximize their share. As a result, neither party may receive as much as they would if resources were abundant, leading to a negative outcome for both.

This option is incorrect. When resources run out, competition typically leads to unfavorable circumstances, as parties struggle to obtain what little is left, often resulting in conflict or loss.

This option is incorrect. While cooperation can sometimes lead to mutual benefits, competition by definition involves parties working against each other to secure resources, which does not inherently result in mutual benefit. Additionally, the notion that "all animals love to share" is not accurate in the context of competition.