Question

read the following paragraph from an essay against banning dog breeds: for one thing, there is no such breed as a pit bull. the american kennel club does not recognize or register pit bulls. the aspca (2011) says a dozen or more different breeds are often lumped under the label, and each has its own disposition and characteristics. because there isnt a true pit bull breed, the statistics that ban advocates use cannot be trusted. while government records do list pit bulls as the biggest single cause of fatal dog attacks, the same study calls its own figures unreliable because people tend to call any large dog with a big head and short coat a pit bull (sacks, sinclair, and gilchrist, 2015). this paragraph provides evidentiary support for which of the arguments below? banning pit bulls will not reduce dog attacks on humans. there is no clear proof that pit bulls are inherently dangerous. organizations familiar with dogs and dog behavior oppose bans on specific breeds. statistics are unreliable.

Explanation:

The paragraph argues that since "pit - bull" is not a recognized breed and the statistics on dog attacks attributed to them are unreliable, there is no clear evidence that pit - bulls are inherently dangerous. It doesn't focus on whether banning will reduce attacks, which organizations oppose bans, or a general claim about statistics being unreliable.

Answer:

There is no clear proof that pit bulls are inherently dangerous.