Question

The following claim is made in an argumentative essay:
The United States should require all citizens to be listed as organ donors.

Which of the following would be considered ineffective evidence to support this claim? (5 points)

Examples of situations when organ donations have saved lives
Facts from a documentary about mechanical and artificial hearts
Statistics showing the number of lives saved by organ donors each year
Testimony from the emergency room doctors and patients who have been saved

Answer 1

Hi
Plz HELP!

Answer 2

Going through the answer choices one by one:

- Examples of situations when organ donations have saved lives ---> this is *effective* evidence in favor of requiring all citizens to be organ donors. Having all citizens be registered organ donors helps provide more potential organs, thus saving lives.
- Similar logic for
Statistics showing the number of lives saved by organ donors each year
Testimony from the emergency room doctors and patients who have been saved

because these also help support the idea that mandatory organ registration is a good thing, because it shows how having more donated organs can help people/save lives.

The odd one out is Facts from a documentary about mechanical and artificial hearts, because this doesn't support the argument being made. Actually, the existence of mechanical/artificial hearts could be used as evidence *against* having everyone register as an organ donor, since we could use artificial organs instead of real ones.

Therefore, the argument that is *ineffective* is Facts from a documentary about mechanical and artificial hearts