Question

read the passage, then answer the question that follows. in the united kingdom there are some forty millions of us. outside there are ten millions of men either directly descended from ancestors who left this country or more probably men who themselves in their youth left this country in order to find their fortunes in our possessions abroad. how long do you suppose that this proportion of population is going to endure? the development of those colonies has been delayed by many reasons... but mainly probably by a more material reason - by the fact that the united states of america has offered a greater attraction to british emigration. but that has changed. the united states, with all their vast territory, are filling up; and even now we hear of tens of thousands of emigrants leaving the united states in order to take up the fresh and rich lands of our colony in canada. it seems to me not at all an impossible which statement best evaluates the effectiveness of the evidence in the passage? it effectively appeals to emotion and nationalism with logical and anecdotal evidence of citizenship trends that support the empire. it ineffectively uses logical evidence because it is not clear whether the immigration patterns verifiably support decolonization. it effectively uses anecdotal evidence to verify the immigration trends and support the empire. it ineffectively uses anecdotal evidence because it makes canada seem powerful.

Explanation:

The passage uses numbers about populations in the UK and those with UK - ancestry abroad as well as anecdotal information about emigration trends to the US and Canada. It aims to support the idea related to the empire. The evidence is anecdotal as it presents stories about emigration trends rather than hard - data verification. It is used to support the idea of the empire, not decolonization.

Answer:

It effectively uses anecdotal evidence to verify the immigration trends and support the empire.