Which statements represent valid reasoning and which statements represent invalid reasoning? a town is considering whether to create a fenced dog run on two acres of its major park, so that dogs can be free of leashes without posing a danger to people outside the fenced area. a citizen makes a speech against building the dog run. which statements represent valid reasoning and which statements represent invalid reasoning? label valid reasoning invalid reasoning \ giving dogs more opportunity to run and play would be a kindness to these friendly, loyal, sensitive animals. as a child, the speaker was frightened by a dog barking angrily from behind a fence. the dog run would benefit dog owners by marking their dogs happier and healthier. only 38 percent of the town's citizens own dogs, so the majority will not gain anything from a dog run.

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

idk

explanation: