Final answer:
Statement B correctly suggests that when arguing the effects of something, qualifications are necessary due to the interpretative nature of evidence. Effective argumentation involves research, discussion, and logical reasoning supported by evidence to guide the interpretation of your claim.
Step-by-step explanation:
When arguing the effects of something, statement B best represents how one should approach the argument: You will almost always need to qualify what you say about the effects. This is because the evidence provided can often be interpreted in various ways, and it is your responsibility to guide the reader in interpreting the evidence to support your claim. While some effects might be more obvious than others, plainly stating that all the effects are equally plausible or presenting your argument as the conclusive final word on the subject is typically not feasible due to the complexity of most issues and the variety of perspectives that might exist.
Additionally, doing some research to understand potential counterarguments and having discussions with others can help in presenting a well-rounded argument. It is also important to note the reasoning, which may be implied rather than explicitly stated, behind the effects you argue for. Claims should be supported with logical reasoning and evidence, and you should be prepared for the possibility that there may be alternative, valid interpretations of the evidence that you need to address.