read the claim and the supporting evidence. claim: federal regulation needs to be reexamined because of the…

read the claim and the supporting evidence. claim: federal regulation needs to be reexamined because of the way the burden of compliance affects small businesses. evidence: one estimate found that compliance to federal regulations costs small businesses as much as $3,000 more per employee than large businesses. why does the evidence support the claim? choose the analysis that better explains the connection. its not fair for regulatory requirements to disproportionately affect small businesses. if regulatory inefficiencies arent fixed, it will be impossible for american small businesses to compete in foreign markets.

read the claim and the supporting evidence. claim: federal regulation needs to be reexamined because of the way the burden of compliance affects small businesses. evidence: one estimate found that compliance to federal regulations costs small businesses as much as $3,000 more per employee than large businesses. why does the evidence support the claim? choose the analysis that better explains the connection. its not fair for regulatory requirements to disproportionately affect small businesses. if regulatory inefficiencies arent fixed, it will be impossible for american small businesses to compete in foreign markets.

Answer

Brief Explanations:

The claim is about re - examining federal regulation due to compliance burden on small businesses. The evidence shows higher per - employee compliance costs for small businesses. The first analysis directly relates to the unfairness of disproportionate impact on small businesses, which is in line with the claim. The second analysis about foreign market competition is not directly related to the claim's focus on re - examining regulation due to compliance burden.

Answer:

It's not fair for regulatory requirements to disproportionately affect small businesses.