Question

read the following sentence:
i cant tell you how many times i have to honk at a driver whos sitting at a green light texting instead of driving. but the consequences of texting in a car can be far, far worse.
what would most naturally come next in this argument?
a. an example of how texting and driving can cost lives
b. a proposal to make phones and small devices illegal
c. the definition of \texting\ in terms of the device used
d. the writer’s further observations of annoying drivers

Explanation:

The argument first mentions a minor annoyance of texting drivers, then states the consequences are far worse. A natural next step is to provide a serious, concrete example of those severe consequences. Option A directly addresses the "far worse" consequences with a life-threatening example, which aligns with the argument's shift from a minor frustration to major harm. Options B is an extreme, unrelated proposal; C is an unnecessary definition that doesn't advance the point about consequences; D stays on the minor annoyance topic instead of addressing the worse outcomes.

Answer:

A. An example of how texting and driving can cost lives