Question

which piece of evidence would best support this argument?

wolves should be taken off the united states endangered species list.

a. according to the national hunting website, wolves are no longer endangered and should be hunted in order to ensure their numbers dont become too large.

b. my cousin goes camping often, and he says that he has seen more wolves in the past year than he has at any other point in his life.

c. gray wolves are most often found in wyoming, montana, and idaho and are considered native to those places.

d. according to national park statistics, wolf populations in parks like yellowstone and zion are at their highest point in over a century.

Explanation:

• Option A: The "National Hunting website" may have a biased perspective (promoting hunting), so its claim about wolves not being endangered is less reliable.
• Option B: A single person's anecdotal evidence (cousin's observation) is not as strong as statistical or official data to support the argument.
• Option C: Information about the native habitat of gray wolves does not directly relate to whether their population is sufficient to be removed from the endangered list.
• Option D: National park statistics showing wolf populations at their highest in over a century provide objective, data - based evidence that the wolf population has recovered, which supports the argument that they should be taken off the endangered species list.

Answer:

D. According to national park statistics, wolf populations in parks like Yellowstone and Zion are at their highest point in over a century.