Question

imagine that you are writing an argument for mandatory year-round school nationwide. which claim is most effective and precise?
most students are against coming to school in the summer.
we have never had year-round school before, so it will not work.
more frequent breaks are beneficial for students and teachers alike.
i am against year-round school because i do not like it.

Explanation:

Effective, precise argument claims for a policy (mandatory year-round school) need to be evidence-based, relevant to the policy's merits, and avoid personal opinions or unsubstantiated claims. The first option states a student preference that does not support the policy. The second uses a flawed "we've never done it so it won't work" logic with no evidence. The fourth is a personal, subjective dislike, not a valid supporting claim. The third option identifies a clear, relevant benefit for both key groups (students and teachers) that supports the policy.

Answer:

C. More frequent breaks are beneficial for students and teachers alike.