Please halp, gotta fix dem grades

the answer is d. chordata

a fossil fuel is a fuel formed by natural processes, such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms, containing energy originating in ancient photosynthesis.[1] the age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years.[2] fossil fuels contain high percentages of carbon and include petroleum, coal, and natural gas.[3] other commonly used derivatives include kerosene and propane. fossil fuels range from volatile materials with low carbon to hydrogen ratios like methane, to liquids like petroleum, to nonvolatile materials composed of almost pure carbon, like anthracite coal. methane can be found in hydrocarbon fields either alone, associated with oil, or in the form of methane clathrates.

the theory that fossil fuels formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth's crust over millions of years was first introduced by andreas libavius "in his 1597 alchemia [alchymia]" and later by mikhail lomonosov "as early as 1757 and certainly by 1763".[4] the first use of the term "fossil fuel" was by the german chemist caspar neumann, in english translation in 1759.[5]

in 2017 the world's primary energy sources consisted of petroleum (34%), coal (28%), natural gas (23%), amounting to an 85% share for fossil fuels in primary energy consumption in the world.[6] non-fossil sources in 2006 included nuclear (8.5%), hydroelectric (6.3%), and others (geothermal, solar, tidal, wind, wood, waste) amounting to 0.9%.[7] world energy consumption was growing at about 2.3% per year. in 2015 about 18% of worldwide consumption was from renewable sources.[8]

"1. it should be, it has been for about 20 years, and it's really not much different in the end than breeding animals to have particular traits. there are always concerns about genetically engineered animals/plants affecting the environment in unexpected negative ways, but i can't think of an example where the fears didn't turn out to be baseless.  

first, as you point out, it would be a great advance in pharmacology, to be able to tailor drugs and their doses to me. the pros involve better medical treatment. the cons involve privacy issues like insurance companies denying coverage to people with genetic risk factors. looking at dna markers wouldn't affect the frequency of genetic diseases, but it would allow detection of them earlier. and ok, actually i suppose that if people used this information to avoid having children with genetic diseases, some might decrease in frequency."