You have been assigned an argumentative writing task where you are to challenge the use of performance enhancing drugs by olympic athletes.

which is the best example of a precise claim you might make for your argument?
a) people who use steroids or other performance enhancing drugs do so because they make them bigger, faster, and stronger.
b) there was a canadian sprinter in the 1980's named ben johnson who got his gold medal taken away because he got caught using steroids.
c) there have been many situations where olympic athletes have used performance enhancing drugs to get a competitive edge; the problem is that only sometimes do they get caught.
d) though many athletes argue that as long everybody has the same rules and restrictions, then any legal performance enhancing drug should be allowed, those drugs are still harmful and create inequalities that will damage the pure competition of the olympics.

B) There was a Canadian sprinter in the 1980's named Ben Johnson who got his gold medal taken away because he got caught using steroids.

Explanation:

The use of performance enhancing drugs has been part of olympics since the beginning. The only problem is that sometimes they get caught and sometimes they do not. It is fairly unfair to enhance performance through drugs in comparison to those who are participating without the use of such drugs. That is clear cut an unfair competition.

This point can be strengthened with the help of an example that can certainly make the drug user to be vary. This is option B) There was a Canadian sprinter in the 1980's named Ben Johnson who got his gold medal taken away because he got caught using steroids.

can you give some possible answers

no,

explanation:

because they are likely to use their corrupted thought process to get what they want. not what is better for the another reason they shouldn't is since they abused their rights as a us citizen they should have certain rights stripped away from them as punishment, such as the right to vote. due to the lack of proper behavior exemplified   from their actions , it would be hard for people to trust them because of their criminal record.   either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers). in fact, we do have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require people to meet before they are given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. people who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. and those crimes can include such “non-violent felonies” as, say, treason and espionage, or voter fraud and public corruption, white-collar crime and felonies merely “concerning drugs” — like trafficking in fentanyl-laced heroin and selling it to minors, for example. if you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else.