consider this claim: rather than being promoted as art, graffiti should be condemned and prohibited. which…

consider this claim: rather than being promoted as art, graffiti should be condemned and prohibited. which is the strongest evidence to support the claim? studies have demonstrated that the majority of people who make graffiti are males between the ages of twelve and twenty - one years old, whereas only about 15 percent of graffiti taggers are young females. graffiti hurts, a grassroots community education program in the united states, cites fame, rebellion, self - expression, and power as the four motivating factors for graffiti vandalism. calling graffiti \art\ encourages its creation, which in turn leads to a costly community expense. for instance, the kansas city parks and recreation department spent approximately $130,000 in 2012 to remove graffiti.

consider this claim: rather than being promoted as art, graffiti should be condemned and prohibited. which is the strongest evidence to support the claim? studies have demonstrated that the majority of people who make graffiti are males between the ages of twelve and twenty - one years old, whereas only about 15 percent of graffiti taggers are young females. graffiti hurts, a grassroots community education program in the united states, cites fame, rebellion, self - expression, and power as the four motivating factors for graffiti vandalism. calling graffiti \art\ encourages its creation, which in turn leads to a costly community expense. for instance, the kansas city parks and recreation department spent approximately $130,000 in 2012 to remove graffiti.

Answer

Brief Explanations:

The claim is that graffiti should be condemned and prohibited instead of being promoted as art. The first option just gives demographic data about graffiti - makers, which is not relevant to why it should be prohibited. The second option lists motivations for graffiti vandalism but doesn't directly link to the cost - related reason for prohibition. The third option shows that promoting graffiti as art leads to costly community expenses for removal, directly supporting the claim that it should be condemned and prohibited.

Answer:

Calling graffiti "art" encourages its creation, which in turn leads to a costly community expense. For instance, the Kansas City Parks and Recreation Department spent approximately $130,000 in 2012 to remove graffiti.