Question

regina is writing an argument against adding fluoride to the citys drinking water. which statement best introduces the topic?
a. the food and drug administration stated in 2000 that fluoride is a drug subject to regulation when it is \used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animal\ and, therefore, deserves careful attention as we consider adding it to our water supply
b. because the food and drug administration has stated in 2000 that fluoride is a drug subject to regulation when it is \used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animal,\ we would be pathetically misguided to put it in our water supply.
c. adding a known drug to our drinking water is not responsible, and a lot of people agree with me on this issue; even the food and drug administration has admitted that fluoride is a drug subject to regulation.
d. even the food and drug administration would agree that we are flooded with toxins and chemicals; therefore, we should carefully consider the facts before adding more fluoride to our drinking water.

Explanation:

Option A presents a neutral - fact based introduction about the FDA's stance on fluoride as a regulated drug, setting the stage for the argument against adding it to the water supply. Option B is too opinion - laden with the word "pathetically misguided" right away. Option C starts with a strong opinion "not responsible" and is less objective. Option D brings in the idea of toxins and chemicals which is a bit off - topic compared to starting with the FDA's regulation stance on fluoride.

Answer:

A. The Food and Drug Administration stated in 2000 that fluoride is a drug subject to regulation when it is "used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animal" and, therefore, deserves careful attention as we consider adding it to our water supply