Answer:
his statement contains two fallacies:
Appeal to pity: It attempts to evoke sympathy for hungry children to pressure the audience into a specific action (voting the governor out). While the issue of hungry children is important, the argument doesn't address the reasons behind the veto.
Hasty generalization: It jumps to the conclusion that the governor doesn't care about hungry children simply because he vetoed the bill. There could be various reasons for the veto, such as concerns about the bill's effectiveness or funding.
Explanation:
