Question

Opponents of reusing water have long had the upper hand, said Paul Slovic, a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, because of the “branding problem.”
People tend to judge risk emotionally, he said, and a phrase like “toilet to tap” can undercut earnest explanations. “The water industry has not been good at marketing reuse,” he added. But research has shown that highlighting the benefits of recycled water—and the need—can shift emotions to a more positive reaction and help diminish the sense of risk.
–“Water Flowing from Toilet to Tap
May Be Hard to Swallow,”
John Schwartz
Which statement is a correct evaluation of the evidence in the passage?
It is sound because it cites an expert’s opinion.
It is not valid because it uses irrelevant information.
It is logical because it includes statistics and other scientific data.
It is illogical because it does not connect the reader back to the claim.

Answer 1

Answer:

It is sound because it cites an expert’s opinion.

Explanation:

The paragraph bases its argument on the research and explanation of the psychology professor John Schwartz, who defines the low reuse of water as a "branding problem" since those who are responsible for carrying out the process have not done enough marketing to change the negative perception that this has.

The other response options are not correct since:

1. The paragraph does use relevant information to verify the argument.

2. The paragraph is logical but does not use statistical data or other scientific data to explain its argument.

3. It is logical since he develops the argument with the respective evidence.

Answer 2

Answer:

It is sound because it cites an expert’s opinion.

Explanation:

Was right on edge