Question

what reasoning does the author use to argue against eliminating football? football injuries are less severe than car accidents. football is a popular sport among students. football provides financial opportunities for students through scholarships. football is safer than other sports.

Explanation:

To argue against eliminating football, the author's reasoning should relate to a valid benefit of football. Comparing football injuries to car accidents (first option) is not a strong argument for keeping football. Popularity (second option) is a weaker argument than a tangible benefit like financial opportunities. Claiming football is safer than other sports (fourth option) is not a typical or strong argument without evidence. The third option, that football provides financial opportunities via scholarships, is a concrete and impactful reason to keep football as it helps students financially.

Answer:

C. Football provides financial opportunities for students through scholarships.