Question

read the claim and the supporting evidence.
claim: motorcyclists should be required to wear helmets.
evidence: studies have shown that wearing a helmet significantly reduces the risk of death in an accident.
why does the evidence support the claim? choose the analysis that better explains the connection.
if all motorcyclists wore helmets, they would not get hurt.
laws should protect citizens against the risk of great harm.

Explanation:

• Analyze the first option: The statement "If all motorcyclists wore helmets, they would not get hurt" is an overstatement. Wearing a helmet reduces the risk of death but doesn't guarantee no injuries.
• Analyze the second option: The evidence shows helmets reduce death risk (a great harm). The claim is about requiring helmets. The idea that laws should protect citizens from great harm connects the evidence (helmet reduces death risk) to the claim (require helmets as a protective law).

Answer:

The correct analysis is: Laws should protect citizens against the risk of great harm.