Respuesta :
The first statement is Invalid Reasoning. Though a dog run would be a kind action towards dogs, it is not truly a valid point in justifying the construction of a dog run. It is not enough of a reason.
The second statement is also Invalid reasoning. The information is not relevant to the argument of building or not a dog run.
The third statement is Valid Reasoning. It states clearly an argument in favour of building a dog run.
The fourth statement is also Valid Reasoning. It explains a reason why the dog run is not really a priority, and would benefit only few citizens. It is a valid argument against the dog run
Reasonable:
- Giving dogs more opportunity to run and play would be a kindness to these friendly, loyal, sensitive animals
- A recent poll found that the proposed dog run is supported by 75% of dog owners and 70% of those who don't own dogs
Unreasonable:
- My daughter gets scared when she hears dogs barking, so they should be kept behind a fence at a park
- Town leaders never listen to the concerns of dog owners because politicians tend to dislike animals
~Sarah Robinsen