Question

text
text 1: the famous pothole on main street was several inches deep before the city managed to address the situation. the hole was first reported three years ago. over time, it grew deeper and cost local residents more tires with each passing month. after much debate, the city finally hired a local private business to fill the hole and patch the pavement. given the city’s lack of working street equipment, this was clearly the right call.
text 2: everyone was aware of the pothole on main street, but nonetheless it remained a steadfast resident of our town for three years. its presence gave us so many choices. should we drivers take a different route or run over the hole and hope for the best? was it wiser to trust the city to handle it, or should some brave citizen have jumped in to save us all? should that brave citizen have used gravel, cement, or something vastly more entertaining—such as rubber cement? at least then we could have had a town trampoline, if not safe and smooth roads for all.
what is the author of text 2 most likely trying to achieve with this argument? (1 point)
○ to make readers laugh about the pothole situation
○ talk seriously about the pothole problem.
○ to warn drivers about the danger of the pothole
○ to explain how the pothole was finally repaired

Explanation:

Text 2 uses humorous language like suggesting a "town trampoline" with rubber cement and playful questions about handling the pothole. The other options don't fit: it's not serious (eliminates "Talk seriously..."), doesn't warn about danger (focus is on humorous choices, not safety), and doesn't explain repair (Text 1 does that). So the author aims to amuse readers about the pothole situation.

Answer:

A. To make readers laugh about the pothole situation