Question

evaluating evidence
opponents of reusing water have long had the upper
hand, said paul slovic, a professor of psychology at the
university of oregon, because of the \branding problem.\
\people tend to judge risk emotionally,\ he said, and a
phrase like \toilet to tap\ can undercut earnest
explanations. \the water industry has not been good at
marketing reuse,\ he added. but research has shown that
highlighting the benefits of recycled water—and the need
—can shift emotions to a more positive reaction and help
diminish the sense of risk.
—\water flowing from toilet to tap
may be hard to swallow\
john schwartz
which statement is a correct evaluation of the evidence
in the passage?
it is sound because it cites an expert’s opinion.
it is not valid because it uses irrelevant information.
it is logical because it includes statistics and other
scientific data.
it is illogical because it does not connect the reader
back to the claim.

Explanation:

To determine the correct evaluation, we analyze each option:

• Option 1: The passage cites Paul Slovic, a psychology professor, giving an expert opinion on the "branding problem" and related research on marketing reused water. Citing an expert's opinion (along with research) supports the evidence, making it sound.
• Option 2: The information (expert opinion, research) is relevant to evaluating the evidence about reusing water, so "irrelevant" is incorrect.
• Option 3: The passage does not include statistics or other scientific data (just expert opinion and research summary), so this is incorrect.
• Option 4: The passage connects to the claim about evaluating evidence for reusing water (via expert opinion and research), so "does not connect" is incorrect.

Answer:

A. It is sound because it cites an expert’s opinion.