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
I think its d the suffix ly
Having good judgment; fair and sensible
"no reasonable person could have objected"
