The kind of evidence that Matteo could use to support this claim is: a study explaining that team sports teach students social skills.
When a person puts forward a claim in an essay, it is vital that they incorporate evidence that is related to the theme and supports the point being made.
Matteo can convince his audience to adopt his claim that team sport is beneficial for students if he incorporates a study that explains that team sports teach students social skills.
Learn more about evidence in essays here:
brainly.com/question/11600913
Answer:
In the book "The Gift", by the sociologist Marcel Mauss, we can see helpful theory start to answer this question. "The Gift" theory came to put lot society’s phenomena in fluxes perspective; these fluxes are built in two ways, and, firstly, explain some material exchange. Works of art, images, and religious objects and the construction - or destruction - of temples and other big investments can found in that fluxes. The graffiti can show up in that how a mark, some indication from a different social class, some indication of protection. The graffiti, in that way can be a mark from a different group in to some big "gift" way, inserting different social classes - separated by resources or by time - in the "gift" fluxes.
Explanation:
We know the following about enrolling children in preschools before they begin formal schooling (which usually takes place at around 5 or 6 years of age):
Children who attended preschool before they began formal schooling were better off cognitively and socially compared to children who stayed at home.
Say for example they’re birds living in the trees they’re cutting down. clearing these trees will destroy their habitats and ultimately result in the population of birds decreasing in the ecosystem. that means that whatever animal eats the birds as prey will decline as well; not enough food. whatever the birds eat will over populate as there’s not enough birds to eat them and keep the population steady. basically there will be messed up amounts of each species
Despite wide recognition that speculation is critical for successful science, philosophers have attended little to it. When they have, speculation has been characterized in narrowly epistemic terms: a hypothesis is speculative due to its (lack of) evidential support. These ‘evidence-first’ accounts provide little guidance for what makes speculation productive or egregious, nor how to foster the former while avoiding the latter. I examine how scientists discuss speculation and identify various functions speculations play. On this basis, I develop a ‘function-first’ account of speculation. This analysis grounds a richer discussion of when speculation is egregious and when it is productive, based in both fine-grained analysis of the speculation’s purpose, and what I call the ‘epistemic situation’ scientists face.