Question

consider this claim:
cities that prohibit artificial turf should lift those restrictions during a drought.
which is the strongest evidence to support the claim?
\when people think about artificial turf, they think about something tacky and visually unappealing. but the truth is that modern artificial turf is nothing like that,\ says city planner rick wagner.
molly patrick of healthy lawn alternatives says, \a grass lawn can require more than forty thousand gallons of water per year. that is how much water could be saved, per residence, if lawns were replaced with artificial turf.
\droughts force us to reconsider details in our daily lives, such as how often we wash our cars and how long we shower each day. its time to take a close look at how we as citizens can participate in conservation,\ writes leah kelly, a leading environmental policy analyst.

Explanation:

The claim is about cities lifting restrictions on artificial turf during droughts. The strongest evidence should directly relate to water - saving during droughts. Molly Patrick's statement provides a specific water - saving statistic (forty thousand gallons of water per year per residence) if grass lawns (which need water) are replaced with artificial turf. This directly supports the idea that allowing artificial turf during droughts (by lifting restrictions) would save water, which is crucial during droughts. Rick Wagner's statement is about the appearance of artificial turf, which is not relevant to the drought - water - saving aspect of the claim. Leah Kelly's statement is a general call for conservation but does not specifically mention artificial turf and its water - saving benefits during droughts as directly as Molly Patrick's.

Answer:

Molly Patrick of Healthy Lawn Alternatives says, "A grass lawn can require more than forty thousand gallons of water per year. That is how much water could be saved, per residence, if lawns were replaced with artificial turf.