BRAINLIEST ANSWER!!!

An author claims that "zoos do more good than harm." The author provides the following as support for the claim:

Without zoos, there are 37 endangered species that would now be extinct. The white rhinoceros and the South China tiger are just two examples. They survive today because the last two of each species were carefully bred in captivity. If not for zoos, these species would have died in the wild.

Which choice best describes the support the author provides?

It is effective support for the claim.
It is ineffective support because it does not help prove the claim.
It is ineffective support because it presents opinion rather than fact.
It is ineffective support because it provides no source for the information.

The author just mention a random fact about those species bred in captivity without providing the source of his data, without backing that information up, so it's just a random statement of his, and a claim like that cannot be proved or studied scientifically to get real implications, thereby the answer is the 4th one: "It is ineffective support because it provides no source for the information".

Answer Link

tanisha3020 tanisha3020 · Answer 2 · 2022-02-01T11:54:50+01:00

The choice that best describes the support the author provides is option D: It is ineffective support because it provides no source for the information.

What is the support for a claim?

When presenting a claim, it is important to present all the facts to support it as well, otherwise, it has no use.

The author is presenting the argument that zoos do a lot of good such as preventing the extinction of certain species.

He also mentions two animal species that would be extinct if they were not taken care of by the zoos.

The problem is that the support becomes ineffective because of the lack of any source of information to back the claim.

Therefore, the correct answer is option D.

Learn more about arguments and claims here:

https://brainly.com/question/3871012