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 best friend) rather than factual evidence about health impacts, so not valid.
• For "If we allow people in the city to keep chickens...": This is a slippery slope fallacy, no evidence to support the claim about other livestock, just a prediction.
• For "The current mayor is ineffective...": The claim is supported by evidence (not bringing new business, not responding to concerns), so valid.
• For "The politician is not qualified...": Arrest in college for protests and strong opinions are not relevant to qualification for office, so no valid evidence.
• For "Increasing the minimum wage benefits the economy...": The claim is supported by evidence (10% profit increase in local businesses after minimum wage increase), so valid.

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.