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. statistics are unreliable. there is no clear proof that pit bulls are inherently dangerous. organizations familiar with dogs and dog behavior oppose bans on specific breeds.

Explanation:

The paragraph argues against banning pit - bulls by stating that there is no clear proof they are inherently dangerous, statistics are unreliable as there's no true breed, and organizations oppose breed - specific bans. It provides evidence like lack of clear proof and issues with statistics and organization stances.

Answer:

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