Question

read the claim and the supporting evidence.

claim: motorcyclists should be required to wear helmets.
evidence: studies have shown that wearing a helmet significantly reduces the risk of death in an accident.

why does the evidence support the claim? choose the analysis that better explains the connection.

laws should protect citizens against the risk of great harm.

if all motorcyclists wore helmets, they would not get hurt.

Explanation:

The claim is about requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. The evidence shows helmets reduce death risk. The first analysis ("Laws should protect citizens against the risk of great harm") connects the evidence (reduced death risk, a great harm) to the claim (requiring helmets as a law to protect). The second analysis is incorrect as helmets reduce risk but don't eliminate all injuries.

Answer:

A. Laws should protect citizens against the risk of great harm.