Question

claim:
students should be required to participate in at least one extracurricular activity because it helps them succeed in school.

questions:

1. which supporting statement provides the strongest, most relevant evidence for the claim? why?
2. which supporting statement is irrelevant or weak? explain why it does not strongly support the claim.
3. is the argument overall strong or weak? explain your reasoning.

Explanation:

To answer these questions, we need to assume the existence of supporting statements (since they are not provided in the problem). For question 1, a strong supporting statement would directly link extracurricular participation to school success, e.g., "A study found that students who participated in at least one extracurricular activity had a 20% higher average GPA than those who didn't" – it's strong because it uses data to show a causal link. For question 2, a weak/irrelevant statement might be "Extracurricular activities are fun" – it's weak as it doesn't relate to school success. For question 3, if most supporting statements (like the GPA example) are strong and relevant, the argument is strong; if many are weak/irrelevant, it's weak.

Answer:

1. (Assuming supporting statements exist) A statement like "A study showed that students in extracurriculars had 20% higher GPAs" is strong – it uses empirical data to link extracurriculars to school success (higher GPA).
2. (Assuming) A statement like "Extracurriculars are fun" is weak – it focuses on enjoyment, not school success.
3. (Depends on supporting statements) If most statements (like the GPA one) are strong/relevant, the argument is strong; if many are weak/irrelevant, it's weak. For example, with the GPA statement, it's strong as key evidence links the claim's cause (extracurriculars) to effect (school success).