Question

read the claim and the supporting evidence.
claim: we should encourage more people to bike to school and work.
evidence: biking to school and work results in less smog in our neighborhoods.
why does the evidence support the claim? choose the analysis that better explains the connection.
to gain cleaner air, its worth sacrificing the convenience of
cars.
if everyone biked to work, we could eliminate smog.

Explanation:

The claim is about encouraging biking to school/work, and the evidence is that biking reduces smog (which is related to air quality). The first analysis connects the idea of getting cleaner air (from less smog) with being willing to give up car convenience (by biking). The second analysis is an overstatement as eliminating smog entirely is unlikely just from everyone biking. So the first analysis better explains the connection between the claim (encourage biking) and evidence (less smog) by showing the trade - off for cleaner air.

Answer:

To gain cleaner air, it's worth sacrificing the convenience of cars.