Question

A writer wants to make the following claim:

Because of the lessons we have learned about careful water use, restrictions on the watering of lawns in Springdale should continue even after the drought ends.

Which of the following would provide the most convincing support for this claim?

Interviews with people who water their lawns too much and do more harm than good
A community survey that states the majority of people support the lawn watering restrictions
Evidence that restrictions effectively save significant amounts of water
A claim by the homeowners' association that the restrictions are in the best interests of the neighborhood

Answer 1

I think the correct answer would be option 2. The best and most convincing support would be a community survey that states the majority of people support the lawn watering restrictions. The power of the majority is stronger than anything else. When almost everyone agrees, then why not follow what the people thinks the best. 

Answer 2

Answer C. "Evidence that restrictions effectively save significant amounts of water."

Facts are always better to use when supporting a claim.  

The interview might explain that people who water their lawn too frequently are more likely to harm rather than help.  Except, this isn't a true fact because there is no causation between people watering their lawn too much and doing more harm.

A survey might show a popular vote, but the majority could possibly have voted for something based on opinions instead of facts.  

This is a true fact because their is evidence of a causation between watering restrictions and saving water.  By restricting the amount of water people can use for their lawns, water is being saved.  

A claim isn't a fact that can be used for supportive details.