Which explains a case of a conflict over water rights?
During the Libyan Civil War, loyalists seize a water plant and cut off the water supply to the capital.
Natives of Sudan have not wanted to share their limited water supply, leading to civil war and killing of thousands.
A Pakistani terrorist group threatens to contaminate the water supply of a major city with poison.
North Korea releases the floodgates on a dam, causing flash floods that kill six South Koreans.
A?
hey guys for anyone looking for it I just took the test and B is correct!
Yes, B.
A is more of a terrorist act.
There's a better answer.
The answer is A - During the Libyan Civil War, loyalists seize a water plant and cut off the water supply to the capital.
To find the answer, you need to understand each scenario and identify whether it involves a conflict over water rights.
In option A, the Libyan Civil War, loyalists seize a water plant, which indicates a conflict over water rights. This action disrupts the water supply to the capital, causing a conflict and potentially leading to tensions or violence.
In option B, the situation in Sudan involves natives not wanting to share their limited water supply, leading to a civil war. While this scenario does involve water scarcity, it does not specifically relate to a conflict over water rights.
In option C, a Pakistani terrorist group threatens to contaminate the water supply of a major city with poison. This scenario does involve water, but it is more focused on terrorism and posing a threat rather than a conflict over water rights.
In option D, North Korea releases the floodgates on a dam, causing flash floods that kill six South Koreans. This situation does involve water as a means for causing damage, but it is not directly related to a conflict over water rights.
Therefore, option A is the correct answer as it specifically outlines a case of conflict over water rights during the Libyan Civil War.