At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
An author claims that "Athletes caught using performance-enhancing drugs should be sentenced to prison." The author provides the following reason as support: In 2013, the TV show Sport-Zone surveyed 2,000 athletes. 73 percent admitted knowing a teammate who took performance-enhancing drugs. Huang Kroll, spokesperson for the International Olympic Committee, was interviewed during the program. "Using illegal substances to gain an advantage is a huge issue," he explained. "Unless stronger laws are passed—laws that result in prison rather than suspension from competition—the problem will continue to grow." Which choice best describes the reason the author provides? It is effective. It supports the claim clearly and logically. It is irrelevant. It discusses a fact that is off topic and does not support the claim. It is unreliable. It does not give any details to prove that the source can be trusted. It is unverified. It does not cite a source to show where the information was located.
The author is claiming that people who use enhancement drugs should be sentenced to prison. However, his reasoning only says that it is an issue and the problem will continue to grow without stronger laws. It doesn't say why people should be sentenced to prison for it, or why it's such a big issue. So, while the reasoning is verified and reliable, I wouldn't say that it's overly effective at supporting the claim.
help with one more plz An author claims that "Athletes caught using performance-enhancing drugs should be sentenced to prison." The author provides the following reason as support: A cool article in Kid's Sports Magazine says athletes are role models. I agree! It's heartbreaking for kids to learn that our heroes are cheaters. If players do steroids, send them to prison! They deserve to be punished for making us look stupid for cheering for them. Which choice best describes the reason the author provides? It is effective. It supports the claim clearly and logically. It is emotional. It expresses personal feelings that cannot be backed with research. It is irrelevant. It discusses a fact that is off topic and does not support the claim. It is unverified. It does not cite a source to show where the information was located.
That is emotional. The person is expressing their own feelings and has no backing with research. Also, to go back to the first question: I reread the question, and I think I'd probably go with A instead of B. I wouldn't say that that reasoning supports the claim very well, but it's probably the best answer to go with. Since B says that for it to be irrelevant it has to be off topic, and the reasoning is on topic, I'd go with A.