In the past, we've held contests to decide on the names for new municipal buildings in our town, with the winning entry chosen by our town council. However, these contests were really just a sneaky way for the town council to choose the name they wanted all along.

Question

With hundreds of entries to choose from, the council was bound to find the name they had in mind. I think we can all agree that the only real winners in these contests were the town council members themselves.As you all know, a new library will be opening within the next year. This time, I propose that we hold a public vote to choose the name.
The process will be simple. Residents can visit the polling station and write down any name they like. The votes will be tallied, and the most popular name will be given to our new library. A similar process has been used in neighboring cities. Residents reported that they felt the process was fairer. A higher percentage of people approved of building names compared to instances where names were decided through contests. Having a vote is a faster process than judging individual contest entries. And, the names chosen through votes are often more familiar and easier to pronounce. By holding a vote, town council can show residents that it truly values what they have to say. And finally, our neighboring town of Westmont also named its library by a vote.Which evidence included in the second paragraph is least relevant to the speaker's argument?
(1 point)
And finally, our neighboring town
• of Westmont also named its library by a vote.
Having a vote is a faster process
• than judging individual contest entries.
A higher percentage of people approved of building names
• compared to instances where names were decided through contests.
Citizens reported that they felt the process was fairer.

Answer 1

The least relevant piece of evidence included in the second paragraph is:

"And finally, our neighboring town of Westmont also named its library by a vote."

This statement does not provide strong support for the speaker's argument about the fairness and effectiveness of a voting process. It merely cites an example of another town's action, without explaining how that action contributes to the overall validity of the proposal to hold a public vote in the current town. The other pieces of evidence focus more directly on the benefits and positive outcomes of the voting process itself.