The critique of Fox's proof can be broken down as follows:
- Statement 1: Correctly states the given information.
- Statement 2: Correctly identifies the construction of point D as the midpoint of segment BC.
- Statement 3: This statement asserts that \( BD \cong DC \) based on the definition of a midpoint. This part is correct.
- Statement 4: The statement that \( AD \cong AD \) uses the reflexive property correctly.
- Statement 5: States that triangles \( \triangle ABD \) and \( \triangle ACD \) are congruent. This is correct based on the SAS (Side-Angle-Side) Congruence Theorem since they have two sides and the included angle equal.
- Statement 6: This states that \( \angle B \cong \angle C \), which follows from the congruence of the triangles established in the previous step (CPCTC - Corresponding Parts of Congruent Triangles are Congruent). This is also correct.
Mistakes in Reasoning:
From the options provided, Reason 3 is the one that has a mistake. It should not address angles, but rather the segments.
Correction:
To fix the mistake in Reason 3:
- Reason 3 can remain as is: “\( BD \cong DC \)” as it correctly reflects the definition of a midpoint.
- However, the critique that should address the angle statements is targeted towards Reason 6. It does not have a mistake, but the confusion might arise if one assumes we’re proving different angles that aren't required in this scenario.
Conclusion:
The confusion appears to be in how the statements were interpreted. The correct assessment is that all statements are mostly valid. The critique about statement 3 being about angle congruence doesn’t apply as it concerns segment lengths and respects the definition set by midpoint.