Read the following passage from G.K. Chesterton's "The Philosophy of the Schoolroom" and answer the question.

(1) What modern people want to be made to understand is simply that all argument begins with an assumption; that is, with something that you do not doubt. (2) You can, of course, if you like, doubt the assumption at the beginning of your argument, but in that case you are beginning a different argument with another assumption at the beginning of it. (3) Every argument begins with an infallible dogma, and that infallible dogma can only be disputed by falling back on some other infallible dogma; you can never prove your first statement or it would not be your first. (4) All this is the alphabet of thinking. (5) And it has this special and positive point about it that it can be taught in a school, like the other alphabet. (6) Not to start an argument without stating your postulates could be taught in philosophy as it is taught in Euclid, in a common schoolroom with a blackboard. (7) And I think it might be taught in some simple and rational degree even to the young, before they go out into the streets and are delivered over entirely to the logic and philosophy of the Daily Mail.



The writer is considering adding the following sentence after sentence 2.

If an argument that all students should be evaluated identically begins with the assumption that educational resources are equitably distributed, but you doubt the equitability of resources, then your argument is now about distribution of resources and not how students should be evaluated.

Should the writer add this sentence after sentence 2? (5 points)
Yes, because it appeals to the audience's emotions by referring to an issue that affects everyone.
Yes, because it gives a concrete example that clarifies the complex idea represented in sentence 2.
No, because it interrupts the line of reasoning the writer establishes between sentences 2 and 3.
No, because it presents an example that does not support the claim made in the previous sentence.