Read the following paragraph and determine if the hypothesis is true:

General Olson, you say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time would be a violation, but that's precisely the argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is extendable is the functionable, functional equivalent of an unlimited time, a limited time that 10 years from now can be extended, and then extended again, and extended again. Why -- their argument is precisely that, a limited time doesn't mean anything unless it means, once you have established the limit for works that have been created under that limit, that's the end.

OPT: (A). Yes; (B). It's impossible to say; (C). No;
Hypothesis: Olson is very involved in this scientific experiment.


