This is one proposal that will definitely anger some people: Everyone should have a pet. There should be a law that makes sure everyone will get a pet or give a legitimate reason why they cannot. There are almost infinite arguments to favor owning animals, so not all of them can be listed. The small number of comments against owning pets don't even need to be included.
Which of the following questions would help a reader better approach the point in the first paragraph?
A. Why does the author's claim anger people?
B. How is bias visible in the first paragraph?
C. Which pet is best?
D. Which people should not own pets?
B, I think.
Either A or B, yes.
I can only choose one. Which do you think is better?
Actually, the question that would help a reader better approach the point in the first paragraph is option A: "Why does the author's claim anger people?" This question directly addresses the specific issue mentioned in the first paragraph, which is the proposal that everyone should have a pet and the potential anger it might cause. By understanding the reasons behind people's anger, the reader can gain insights into the potential objections or concerns that individuals might have regarding this proposal.
Option B is not the correct choice because it asks about bias, which is not the main focus or concern of the paragraph. Options C and D are not relevant to the point being discussed in the first paragraph.