Question

which arguments logically support their claims with relevant evidence? check all that apply.
□ eggs are not good for one’s health. both my aunt and my best friend say that eggs are high in cholesterol.
□ if we allow people in the city to keep chickens, then people will start keeping goats, sheep, cows, and other livestock.
□ the current mayor is ineffective. he has not brought new business to the city and does not respond to constituents’ concerns.
□ the politician is not qualified for office because she was arrested in college for anti - war protests and has very strong opinions.
□ increasing the minimum wage benefits the economy. since our town increased the minimum wage, local businesses are showing a 10 percent increase in profits.

Explanation:

• For "Eggs are not good for one’s health...": Relies on personal opinions (aunt and friend) rather than factual, relevant evidence about health impacts.
• For "If we allow people in the city to keep chickens...": This is a slippery slope fallacy, not supported by relevant evidence.
• For "The current mayor is ineffective...": The claim is supported by relevant evidence (not bringing new business, not responding to constituents’ concerns).
• For "The politician is not qualified...": A college arrest for anti - war protests and having strong opinions are not relevant to qualifications for office, so no relevant evidence.
• For "Increasing the minimum wage benefits the economy...": The claim is supported by relevant evidence (10 percent increase in local business profits after minimum wage increase).

Answer:

• The current mayor is ineffective. He has not brought new business to the city and does not respond to constituents’ concerns.
• Increasing the minimum wage benefits the economy. Since our town increased the minimum wage, local businesses are showing a 10 percent increase in profits.