there you go, hope it will help
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Use-Of-Allegory-In-George-Orwells-Animal-FJYXPA3VELV
Summary:
The lifestyle radicals of the '60s saw themselves as heirs to this American tradition of self-expression; today, it energizes the Tea Party movement, marching to defend individual liberty from the smothering grasp of European-style collectivism. And when it comes to questions about how much the respondents value the individual against the collective that is, how much they give priority to individual interest over the demand of groups, or personal conscience over the orders of authority Americans consistently answer in a way that favors the group over the individual. In fact, we are more likely to favor the group than Europeans are. Surprising as it may sound, Americans are much more likely than Europeans to say that employees should follow a boss's orders even if the boss is wrong; to say that children "must" love their parents; and to believe that parents have a duty to sacrifice themselves for their children. Though Americans do score high on a couple of aspects of individualism, especially where it concerns government intervening in the market, in general, we are likelier than Europeans to believe that individuals should go along and get along.
<span>The most well-known fallacy of presumption is <u>“begging the question”.</u></span>
<span>Begging the question is the fallacy
of using the conclusion of the argument as one of the grounds offered in the succeeding
support. While this happens in an implicit or explicit fashion, an explicit
version would appear like this:</span>
<span>·
</span>All chicken are birds.
<span>·
</span>All birds have feathers.
<span>·
</span>Since animal with feathers bear eggs, chicken
bear eggs.
<span>·
</span>But all animals with feathers that bear eggs are birds.
<span>·
</span>Therefore, all chicken are birds.
<span>Unlike other
fallacies, begging the question involves an argument or set of arguments that
is properly valid: if its grounds (including the first) are true, then the
conclusion must be true. </span>
Answer:
Humanity co-exists with nature in a relationship that periodically shifts between symbiotic and parasitic. We maintain this relationship in order to survive. In exchange, we carefully monitor how our behavior alters the natural environment and affects those living within it. This responsibility is the price we pay for our species’ sentience and dominance. To help fulfill our duty, America established the 1954 Wilderness Act in hopes of becoming passive “guardians” of nature instead of encroaching “gardeners.” However, the Wilderness Act has failed. In his article, “Rethinking the Wild”, Christopher Solomon questions the effectiveness of the law and correctly concludes that, after fifty years of dormancy, mankind must take an active role in environmental protection, the role of the gardener. Though critics may argue that the passivity of the “guardian” should be maintained, realistically, little can be done to preserve the environment when we refuse to do anything. Because mankind has a greater stake in the wilderness than we realize, we must assume a proactive role in protecting the wilderness out of respect for nature and our own ethical standards.
Explanation:
