The author supports the claim in Part A by stating that cities around the world are becoming "clones" of one another because they all have the same companies. How well does this reason support the author's claim in Part A?

It is effective because it describes he benefits of visiting cities full of business people are familiar with.

It is irrelevant because does not explain how companies are changing the world's economy through globalization.

It logically explains how cultural identity is negatively impacted through the expansion of companies throughout the world.

It effectively shows how cultures and economies benefit from the introduction of new companies.