9.2.3
Read:
"A Defense of Veganism"
Reading Guide

After you've finished reading, write short answers to the following questions.
1. The author concludes by stating, "That said, the common claims made against veganism are false." Which of the author's arguments do you think support this conclusion best and would be most convincing to someone who is opposed to veganism?

2. At what point in the essay does the author begin to look at counterarguments to veganism? Why do you think she chooses to do so at this point?

1. The author's arguments that supports the closing statement "That said, the common claims made against veganism are false" and would be most convincing to someone that opposes veganism would be the point made about animals not being worthy of certain legal protection.

The author made an argument against that claim by referencing the work of the Australian professor of bioethics Peter Singer who made a case for the protection of animal rights based on the idea of utilitarianism which states that pain more than intelligence is the most important determiner of rights.

2. The author begins to look at counterarguments to veganism in the second paragraph after clearly describing how non-vegans see the actions of vegans as absurd and unbearable in the first paragraph.

I think she chooses to start her counterarguments because she wanted to prove wrong some of the claims by "meat eaters" that vegans have horrific habits and she also wanted to use it to restore "balance and maturity".

what are the choices and the passage take a picture

ok so like i went to wiki and looked up the (constitution x new "hammystan")and it showed me the picture it highlights new hampshire and says first and second session and than it says that they hit up the u.s and was like "ey dude that paper u sent us was adopted it bro thx" xd syays it all on wiki/the pic

i dont really like reading so i guess other people might not like reading either so   imma put the answer in bold italics