Question

which statement primarily appeals to logos to support the position that celebrities should stay out of politics?
as an elected official who has spent her entire career studying the issues, i am disconcerted by the fact that celebrities can garner support for their political beliefs merely because of their name recognition.
as very few celebrities have any political experience at all, their involvement in politics can be a narcissistic farce, turning the focus on their public personas rather than the real issues at hand.
we do not ask celebrities for legal advice or medical advice because we know that they dont have the training or experience of lawyers or doctors. by the same logic, we should not expect celebrities to have the expertise of professional politicians.

Explanation:

Para determinar cuál declaración apela a logos (razonamiento lógico), analizamos cada opción:

• La primera usa autoridad (electo oficial) → ethos.
• La segunda usa juicio subjetivo ("narcisistic farce") → pathos.
• La tercera usa un razonamiento deductivo: si no pedimos consejo legal/médico a celebridades (pues carecen de formación), entonces tampoco deberíamos esperarles expertise político (igual lógica). Esto es un argumento lógico (logos) por analogía.

Answer:

We do not ask celebrities for legal advice or medical advice because we know that they don't have the training or experience of lawyers or doctors. By the same logic, we should not expect celebrities to have the expertise of professional politicians.