Which statement best evaluates the effectiveness of the evidence supporting chamberlains claim ?

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.

at the beginning of the story, elisa just has the small idea of wanting more attention, but as the story progressed, her desire for more attention grew larger. before she talked to the man with the wagon she was just focused on her chrysanthemums but when she talked to him and got some attention she enjoyed it, so she decided to get all dolled up for henry. but when they were on the way to dinner she was so upset because she saw the flowers on the side of the road and realized the man didn't take interest in her like she thought.