Question

opponents of reusing water have long had the upper hand, said paul slovic, a professor of psychology at the university of oregon, because of the \branding problem.\ people tend to judge risk emotionally, he said, and a phrase like \toilet to tap\ can undercut earnest explanations. \the water industry has not been good at marketing reuse,\ he added. but research has shown that highlighting the benefits of recycled water—and the need—can shift emotions to a more positive reaction and help diminish the sense of risk.
—\water flowing from toilet to tap may be hard to swallow,\ john schwartz
which statement is a correct evaluation of the evidence in the passage?
○ it is sound because it cites an expert’s opinion.
○ it is not valid because it uses irrelevant information.
○ it is logical because it includes statistics and other scientific data.
○ it is illogical because it does not connect the reader back to the claim.

Explanation:

1. Analyze Option 1: The passage cites Paul Slovic, a psychology professor (an expert), who explains the "branding problem" and related risk perception/emotional judgment, and research on recycled water benefits. Citing an expert's opinion (with relevant reasoning) is sound evidence.
2. Analyze Option 2: The information (expert opinion, research) is relevant to evaluating water reuse opposition, so "irrelevant information" is incorrect.
3. Analyze Option 3: The passage has no statistics or scientific data (like numbers, experimental results), so this is incorrect.
4. Analyze Option 4: The expert's opinion connects to the claim about opponents' upper hand due to branding problem, and research connects to shifting emotions, so it does connect to the claim, making this incorrect.

Answer:

A. It is sound because it cites an expert’s opinion.