Argument 1: Undocumented immigrants represent large communities in many major U.S. cities. In cities where they fear being interrogated due to their immigration status, they are 70 percent less likely to cooperate with police when a crime occurs. Thus, cities with sanctuary policies are safer for their residents, whether they are legal U.S. citizens or undocumented people. Argument 2: Imagine living in fear of being returned to a dangerous situation simply for communicating with law enforcement. How likely would you be to report a crime if you witnessed it? Now imagine yourself as a resident of a city where a large number of people are afraid to report crimes. Would you feel safe? Does this show you how sanctuary policies make cities safer?

Question

Use the passage to answer the question. Compare the two arguments above. How does the first argument establish a journalistic style when compared to the second argument? Select two correct answers. (2 points) It gives clear and relatable examples. It has a clearly stated claim. It uses a third-person perspective. It uses strictly academic language. It provides facts and statistics as evidence.

Answer 1

The two correct answers that compare the two arguments based on journalistic style are:

1. It has a clearly stated claim.
2. It provides facts and statistics as evidence.

The first argument provides clear evidence with statistics (e.g., "70 percent less likely to cooperate with police") and presents a straightforward claim regarding the safety implications of sanctuary policies. In contrast, the second argument uses a more personal and emotional appeal without explicitly presenting statistical evidence, focusing instead on hypothetical scenarios.