Question

christopher is writing an argument to convince his audience that sending people to the moon again is not a good plan for the united states. what is the strongest claim he can use in the argument?
a. while studying the moon up close would certainly be interesting, it is not wise to invest money on something other than earth.

b. the expense of sending people to the moon is simply not worth the effort that will be required to return to that far - off dot in the sky.

c. the excessive cost of creating a new mission to the moon diverts funding from projects that would have more benefit to the public.

d. sending more people to the moon is not fair to the majority of americans because not everyone will be able to afford to go.

Explanation:

A strong argument claim needs clear, tangible negative impacts tied to the audience's (U.S. public) interests. Option A is vague about "not wise" without specific harms. Option B uses subjective language ("far-off dot in the sky") and lacks concrete consequences. Option D focuses on accessibility for individuals, which is a narrow, weak critique compared to broader public harm. Option C clearly links the Moon mission's cost to diverting funds from high-benefit public projects, providing a specific, impactful, and relatable downside for the U.S. audience.

Answer:

C. The excessive cost of creating a new mission to the Moon diverts funding from projects that would have more benefit to the public.