Reflective paper comparing two philosopher’s articles and their beliefs against each other

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.