What best explains why a written argument without transitions might not work? the relationship between the examples and the conclusion would be unclear and hard to understand. the relationship between ideas would lack the appropriate emphasis and logical flow. the relationship between the claim, reasons, and evidence would be too vague and wouldn’t make sense. the relationship between different parts of the argument would be unclear and hard to follow.

The answer to the question: What best explains why a written argument without transitions might not work, would be, that the relationship between different parts of the argument would be unclear and hard to follow.

Explanation:

The explanation for this answer comes from the purpose, or objective, of argumentation, especially in writting. In academic writing, one of the main purposes is to convey clear, and precise, information about a topic, in order to support, or argument it. Another purpose, though less primary, is that a writer of these types of texts, might be looking to convince an audience on a point, by using ideas that are supported by data and facts. However, in order to make this possible, and allow a reader to understand the purpose, and the argumentation, of a writer, they need transitional words, or transitions, in order to do so. Transitional words are like signals that allow a reader to make connections, and follow logically, the train of thought and the argumentation, of a writer. Without them, these connections would not be possible to do.

your answer is b. "with strong wording encouraging readers to take action."

its english as a dog

explanation: