Philosopher: Wolves do not tolerate an attack by one wolf on another if the latter wolf demonstrates submission by b...

BenMingov on April 22, 2020

Hi Odsimkins, thanks for the question.

This question asks us to describe the method of reasoning used in the argument.

The argument brings up the prohibited act among wolves to attack another wolf that has shown submission. Same with domesticated dogs and foxes. It then concludes that it would be a mistake to deny that animals have rights based on the idea that only humans are capable of obeying moral rules. Evidently, wolves, domesticated dogs, and foxes can all obey moral rules as well.

Without even examining a single answer choice. I am trying to predict what the answer is. The passage makes a concluding remark and backs it up with discussion of these three animals. This feels to me like usage of examples.

That's exactly what A is but it is more precise than my prediction because it is describing counterexamples as opposed to examples in support of something.

As for C, the argument is not that pushing that obeying moral rules should not be a necessary condition for having rights. Rather, it is saying that based on this idea of ability to obey moral rules, we should not deny that animals have rights.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions or would like me to elaborate further.