In 2015, a front group, Ozone Facts, created by a public relations firm with funding from oil, natural gas, chemical, manufacturing, and transportation companies, released the advertisement on the following page in newspapers and magazines across the United States. The advertisements were created as the Obama Administration was considering putting new rules into place that limited the amount of ozone and carbon dioxide emissions that factories could emit. The rules were based on studies from the National Academy of Science and Environmental Protection Agency that found the United States is the leading emitter of ozone and carbon dioxide emissions although six other forms of pollution (i.e., sulfur dioxide emissions, methane, nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur bromide, and fine particulates) have decreased in the United States. Particularly troubling the reports noted, ozone emissions fell from 2000 to 2010 but then increased to above 2000 levels. In the context of the information provided above, what strategy is being used by the front group when the claim that the regulations will lead to unemployment and cost families $1,570 annually? Question 17 options: casting doubt on scientific consensus using a neutral, non-partisan, or scientific sounding name claiming regulations will lead to economic problems promoting