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?
\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 becky fischer, a leading environmental policy analyst.
\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 tim newton.
abby petersen 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.\

Explanation:

The claim is about lifting restrictions on artificial turf during a drought. The first option talks about re - considering daily details for conservation but is too general. The second option focuses on the appearance of artificial turf, which is not relevant to water conservation during drought. The third option directly addresses the water - saving aspect of artificial turf (saving more than forty thousand gallons of water per residence per year if lawns are replaced), which is directly related to the claim of lifting restrictions during a drought as it shows the water - conservation benefit.

Answer:

Abby Petersen 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.”