The argument presented can be evaluated based on its strength and cogency:
1. **Strength of the Argument**: In this case, the argument is weak. The connection between the premise (ignorance of one voter impairing the security of all in a democracy) and the conclusion (voting Carl off the team will make the team safer from losing the tournament) is not logically strong. There is a significant gap in reasoning between the premise about democracy and the conclusion about a sports team.
2. **Cogency of the Argument**: The argument is also uncogent. For an argument to be cogent, it needs to meet two criteria: the argument must be strong (which, as discussed, it is not in this case), and the premises must be true. Even if we were to consider the connection between democracy and team safety, the premise that voting Carl off the team will enhance the team's chances of winning the tournament is not necessarily true or logically connected to the premise about democracy.
Therefore, the correct evaluation for this argument is:
**c. Weak; Uncogent**
This assessment is based on the lack of logical strength in the argument and the lack of truth or relevance in the premises to support the conclusion effectively.
