Question

regina is writing an argument against adding fluoride to the citys drinking water. which statement best introduces the topic?
a. because the food and drug administration has stated in 2000 that fluoride is a drug subject to regulation when it is \used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animal,\ we would be pathetically misguided to put it in our water supply.
b. even the food and drug administration would agree that we are flooded with toxins and chemicals; therefore, we should carefully consider the facts before adding more fluoride to our drinking water.
c. the food and drug administration stated in 2000 that fluoride is a drug subject to regulation when it is \used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animal\ and, therefore, deserves careful attention as we consider adding it to our water supply.
d. adding a known drug to our drinking water is not responsible, and a lot of people agree with me on this issue; even the food and drug administration has admitted that fluoride is a drug subject to regulation.

Explanation:

• Option A: It clearly states the stance against adding fluoride (calling it a misguided action) and provides a relevant FDA statement as a basis, directly introducing the argument topic.
• Option B: Mentions considering facts but is too vague about the stance against adding fluoride compared to A.
• Option C: Just says fluoride deserves careful attention, not clearly against adding it.
• Option D: The "a lot of people agree with me" part is weak compared to the direct and evidence - based approach of A.

Answer:

A. Because the Food and Drug Administration has stated in 2000 that fluoride is a drug subject to regulation when it is "used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animal," we would be pathetically misguided to put it in our water supply.