Question

beginnings and classical literature
speech at the united nations climate action summit
by greta thunberg
my message is that we’ll be watching you.
this is all wrong. i shouldn’t be up here. i should be back in school on
the other side of the ocean. yet you all come to us young people for
hope. how dare you!
you have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.
and yet i’m one of the lucky ones. people are suffering. people are
dying. entire ecosystems are collapsing. we are in the beginning of a
mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of
eternal economic growth. how dare you!
for more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. how dare
you continue to look away and come here saying that you’re doing
enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in
sight.
and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond
human control.
how does the speaker’s use of logos support her argument?
the speaker uses the phrase “50% chance”
to support the argument that the risk of further
climate change is high.
the speaker uses the phrase “in 10 years” to
show that too much time has been spent
ignoring climate change.
the speaker refers to outside sources to...

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each option based on the concept of logos (logical appeal, often using facts, data, or reasoning):

Analyzing Option 1:

The phrase “50% chance” is a statistical or probabilistic claim. Logos uses such data to logically support an argument. A 50% chance of further climate change - related risks is a logical way to show the risk is high (since 50% is a significant probability). This aligns with using logos (logical reasoning via data/statistics) to support the argument about climate change risk.

Analyzing Option 2:

The phrase “in 10 years” alone does not inherently show “too much time has been spent ignoring climate change.” It is a time reference, but without additional context (like “we’ve had 10 years and done nothing”), it does not logically support that specific claim. It lacks the logical connection or data to justify the conclusion about time wasted.

The first option uses a probabilistic phrase ("50% chance") as logical evidence (logos) to support the argument about high climate change risk. The second option’s "in 10 years" does not logically connect to showing time was wasted ignoring climate change.

Answer:

The speaker uses the phrase “50% chance” to support the argument that the risk of further climate change is high.