The first one.
Explanation:
In this first one, the author is pulling apart what the evidence means (analysing it).
In the 2nd, it is NOT analyzing a piece of evidence specifically, it's summarizes the point and says it's supported by the evidence. So, not analyzing.
In the 3rd, the author is applying it to the situation and explaining why it's important, which is different from analysis.
In the 4th, the author is offering an example as evidence, not analyzing a piece of evidence.
George Washington, the nation’s first president, made his first inaugural address before both houses of Congress. He acknowledged Providence as guiding the nation’s steps: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.”
He explained that the virtuous Americans would make the new nation a model for the world: “[T]he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world.”
Finally, he closed by putting the responsibility for the nation squarely in the hands of citizens. “[T]he preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”
The sentence <em>Sickly people cost the company a whole boatload of dough </em>is not acceptable because the sentence contains a loaded word as well as slang.
You cannot use slang words such as <em>boatload </em>or <em>dough </em>in formal English.
