Charitably imagine how philosopher Peter Singer, using his “All Animals are Equal”, would argue against one significant argumentative claim from Baxter and his “People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution,” then argue for or against that imagined argument.
In five pages
1) Explain one significant argumentative claim from Baxter from his “People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution” that your reader needs to know to understand your argument in 4) below;
2) Explain the barest amount of Singer’s “All Animals are Equal” that you reader needs to know to understand your argument in 4) below;
3) Charitably imagine how Singer, as you have presented him in 2), above would argue against the significant argumentative claim from Baxter and his “People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution” presented by you in 1), above;
4) Argue for or against that imagined argument in 3) above; and
5) Defend your argument in 4) Against a naysayer to either your argument’s premise(s) or your argument’s conclusion.
** THE ARTICLES ARE ATTACHED*
Required Reading: Baxter on Animals’ Value “People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution”
Required Reading: Singer on Animal Rights from his “All Animals are Equal”
Use one-inch margins all around, double-spacing throughout, and Times New Roman font, size 12 only–and no title pages or page numbers please.
