Conscientious Meat Eater Analysis

796 Words4 Pages
The article “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater,” written by Sunaura Taylor and Alexander Taylor, looked like a very convincing argument. “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious meat eater” discusses that processed meat is bad for the world, and how it affects us and our surrounding environments in a negative outcome. The one thing I enjoyed reading from this article was the supportive use of evidence through facts to support the author’s thesis statement. However I would argue that the authors, when writing this, didn’t do a thorough job on keeping the subject professional, detailed, unbiased, and citing the sources for their information.
In the article, “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater”, the authors argue that processed meat can greatly affect the many things in our everyday life. Sunaura and Alexander’s argument is significantly unreliable because of the certain professions both authors yield. As stated in the article “Sunaura is an artist, writer, and activist in Oakland.” “Alexander’s profession is studying philosophy, and ethics in Athens, Georgia.” This shows that neither of them are qualified to argue in the subject of conscientious meat eaters. I believe
…show more content…
I did not understand the solution to the problem of being a “conscientious meat eater.” The authors never really stated or concluded an answer to the problem in the article. In the text it says “For many people who care about the environment and animal welfare, choosing to eat humanely raised meat seems like an option.” This argues that only an option to the solution is informed to the reader, and that there is no real solution to the problem at hand. The whole point of the article, “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater”, is to inform the reader about the issue about meat, but because there is no solution to his argument; it makes his argument less effect as a whole when persuading
Open Document