read the passage from an argumentative essay.

many endangered species are currently threatened by climate change. there are some laws already in place, but are they effective enough? anyone with a conscience knows that these creatures deserve the chance to survive without outside threats impeding their survival. i suppose this is a tough decision for lawmakers, but i hope they choose wisely.

which statement best evaluates the claim in the passage?

a) the claim is ineffective because the language used is unclear and the reasoning does not strongly support it.
b) the claim is unsuccessful because most people will not agree with the opinion and reasoning stated in the claim.
c) the claim is logical because it makes sense and the reasoning used to support it is plausible, varied, and effective.

A) The claim is ineffective because the language used is unclear and the reasoning does not strongly support it.

Explanation: The claim presented in the passage is too vague and fails to clearly illustrate the relationship between climate change, endangered species and lawmakers. "Some laws already in place," "survival without external threats" and "tough decision for lawmakers" are some of the phrases that the author introduces in an unclear way, without specifying their meaning.

A. The claim is ineffective because the language used is unclear and the reasoning does not strongly support it.

Explanation:

I just know

the statement that best explains why the tenth amendment reserves some rights and powers to states is that the framers believed in the principle of federalism. this principle says that some powers are in the hands of a centralized national government, while others are reserved for the governments of several states.