Question

Geoff is attempting to refute Marissa's claim that fluoride in the city's water system is dangerous. He states, "Marissa claimed that fluoride is a poison and therefore should be banned from the city's water supply. I strongly disagree. What Marissa failed to tell you is that, according to Dr. James Schmidt, a biochemist at Liverston laboratories in Kansas City, fluoride is only poisonous in significantly larger quantities than would ever be added to our city's water. Last month's Consumer Reports summarizes the results of more than 25,000 studies, all showing that adding small amounts of fluoride to the water is safe." Geoff accomplishesall of the steps of refutation EXCEPT?

a. Signal
b. State
c. Support
d. Summarize
e. None of the above
f. All of the above

Answer 1

f. All of the above

Step-by-step explanation:

"Refutation" is a term used to prove whether a statement or a theory is right or wrong that is whether a statement is correct or wrong.

Marissa claimed that adding fluoride to the water will affect the health of a person when that person drinks fluoride containing water. But Geoff refuses her claim and states that adding fluoride to water in smaller quantities will not affect the quality of the water and the water is safe.

He also says that Dr. James Schmidt, a biochemist at Liverston laboratories in Kansas City has proved that adding smaller quantities of fluoride to water is safe and it is only dangerous when larger quantities of fluoride are used.

Geoff further proves his point by saying that by observing the last month's Consumer Reports which summarizes the results of more than 25,000 studies done on water, it is claimed that water is safe when small amounts of fluoride is added.

Thus Geoff accomplishes all the steps of refutation which includes Signal State, Support and Summarize to prove his point.

Hence the answer is f. All of the above.