Read the following argument made by a concerned citizen at a town meeting:
are we supposed to stand idly by while our town
government wastes millions of dollars? while we pay
higher and higher taxes, our leaders are stuffing the money
into a bag that's riddled with holes! we cannot continue to
support this senseless waste. we cannot accept tax
increases as inevitable. and we cannot allow our elected
officials to retain their positions without fixing this broken
system.
which of these sentences is the most accurate evaluation of the structure of
the argument?
o
a. the repetition of the word "higher creates an emotional effect
that is convincing.
o
b. the opening question shows the issue to be a choice between
common sense and nonsense.
o
c. the idea that elected officials be suspended until the government
can be "fixed" is naïve.
o
d. the notion that paying high taxes is 'senseless' is itself nonsense,
given the evidence.

(B) The opening question shows the issue to be a choice between  common sense and nonsense.

Explanation:

The other options mentioned seem to be evaluating the content of the person’s argument rather than focusing on the argument’s structure. You can see this in (A), where the focus is on the emotional impact of the used words. You can also see it in (C), where the evaluation is instead of the feasibility of the citizen’s argument. It is also apparent in (D), where the evaluation is directed to the ideas proposed inside the argument.

From this breakdown, it is clear that the statement that focuses on the content of the argument is only option (B).  

ok so like i went to wiki and looked up the (constitution x new "hammystan")and it showed me the picture it highlights new hampshire and says first and second session and than it says that they hit up the u.s and was like "ey dude that paper u sent us was adopted it bro thx" xd syays it all on wiki/the pic

i dont really like reading so i guess other people might not like reading either so   imma put the answer in bold italics