Respuesta :
Answer:
"According to the national highway transportation safety authority, the wearing of helmets is directly correlated with a reduced number of traumatic brain injuries."
Explanation:
For the sake of this explanation, I will call these Arguments 1, 2, 3, and 4 (the last one being the correct answer).
Argument 1 does not support the claim that the law should require motorcyclists to wear helmets while driving. It takes away from the main topic regarding the law and instead focuses on advertising and the cost to the consumer. Not effective.
Argument 2 could be argued as a valid option, but this option lacks any sort of reasoning. Sure, it says that more motorcyclists will wear their helmets when the law tells them to - but why is this important? Why should the law change so that more start wearing their helmets? This is not addressed and is important to your argument.
Argument 3 takes away from the fact that you want to convince your audience that the law should require this. With the reduced amount of organ donation statistic, you argue the opposite point.
Argument 4 is effective and states your point with logical reasoning. This argument gives you evidence from a reasonable and trusted source and provides information that correlates with your argument that the law should require this.
Hope this helps!