Which claim can best be supported by this passage?
new technology made warfare more destructive

Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:

...At times, gas has been known to travel, with dire results, fi fteen miles behind the lines. A gas, or smoke helmet, as it is called, at the best is a vile-smelling thing, and it is not long before one gets a violent headache from wearing it. Our eighteen-pounders were bursting in No Man’s Land, in an effort, by the artillery, to disperse the gas clouds. The fi re step was lined with crouching men, bayonets fi xed, and bombs near at hand to repel the expected attack. Our artillery had put a barrage of curtain fi re on the German lines, to try and break up their attack and keep back re-inforcements. I trained my machine gun on their trench and its bullets were raking the parapet [spraying the wall]. Then over they came, bayonets glistening. In their respirators, which have a large snout in front, they looked like some horrible nightmare...

Which claim can best be supported by this passage?

(1) New technology made warfare more destructive.

(2) Warfare had a limited impact on the environment.

(3) Countries engaged in war were punished for their actions.

(4) Illness and disease took many lives.

(1) New technology made warfare more destructive.

Explanation:

The text shows how technology has made wars more destructive and impactful. This is because it presents a narrator that exposes the participation of technology involving the combat with gas used in more modern wars that forced soldiers to enter an even more terrifying environment and in an even more deadly and dangerous battle than those seen in previous wars with the most archaic and least evolved technology.

yes

explanation: