The issue of whether we should eat meat has been widely debated in our community recently. It is an important issue because it addresses ethical principles, environmental problems, and health benefits. A variety of different arguments have been put forward about this issue. This essay will critique Mathew Lee’s argument of “Should We Eat Meat?” as well as gives an argument in support of eating meat. Anticipating potential objections to my argument such as that eating meat harms health, wastes resources, causes deforestation, and creates pollution, I will respond by supporting my arguments for eating meat, drawing conclusions through evidence, and critical thinking.
There are many fallacies that occur in the argument of the passage by Matthew Lee resulting in mistaken conclusions and a lack of validity and soundness. Lee’s argument of “Should We Eat Meat?” has not been developed through the application of reasoning, critical thinking, and drawing conclusions through evidence. Instead it is weak, unconvincing, and lacks supporting evidence. The author briefly addresses the common reasons for a vegetarian to support not eating meat such as morality, environmental issues, and health reasons. While there are many flaws within the writers content, Lee’s argument is mainly ad hominem, attacking PETA and vegetarians rather than engaging with the idea itself. In addition, Lee uses propaganda, analogy, correlation to causation, deductive arguments, generalization from examples, and