read the claim. human bodies have developed over time to support a vegetarian diet. read the counter…

read the claim. human bodies have developed over time to support a vegetarian diet. read the counter - claim. humans have eaten meat along with plants for more than two million years, contributing to our successful evolution. read the rebuttal. evolution is the process of development over history, meaning that change in diet is constant. which statement best analyzes the rebuttal? it is effective because it creates emphasis by adding reasoning to the claim. it is effective because it provides both empirical and logical supporting evidence. it is ineffective because it does not address or acknowledge the counter - claim. it is ineffective because it does not logically point out a flaw in the counter - claim.

read the claim. human bodies have developed over time to support a vegetarian diet. read the counter - claim. humans have eaten meat along with plants for more than two million years, contributing to our successful evolution. read the rebuttal. evolution is the process of development over history, meaning that change in diet is constant. which statement best analyzes the rebuttal? it is effective because it creates emphasis by adding reasoning to the claim. it is effective because it provides both empirical and logical supporting evidence. it is ineffective because it does not address or acknowledge the counter - claim. it is ineffective because it does not logically point out a flaw in the counter - claim.

Answer

Answer:

It is ineffective because it does not address or acknowledge the counterclaim.

Brief Explanations:

The rebuttal focuses on evolution - change in diet being constant but doesn't engage with the counterclaim about humans eating meat for over two million years.