Question

consider this claim:
a law should be passed requiring all football leagues in the country to adopt specific practices and equipment that make the sport safer for players.
now consider how someone might argue against this. which sentence presents the stronger and more reasonable counterclaim to the above claim?
the government should not apply a law to all football leagues because professional, college, and youth leagues have different safety needs and budgets.
if the government is allowed to get involved and make football a \safer\ sport, it will be completely ruined, and no one will want to watch the game anymore.

Explanation:

The first counterclaim is stronger as it provides a reasonable, fact - based argument about different leagues having varying safety needs and budgets, making a one - size - fits - all law impractical. The second counterclaim is an extreme and unsubstantiated prediction (claiming football will be “completely ruined” and no one will watch) without solid reasoning.

Answer:

The government should not apply a law to all football leagues because professional, college, and youth leagues have different safety needs and budgets.