Fair Assessment of Eating Animals?
Book critic Michkiko Kakutani wrote a New York Times newspaper review of Eating Animals, in which he wonders,
“…how the author [Jonathan Safran Foer] can expend so much energy and caring on the fate of pigs and chickens, when, say, malaria kills nearly a million people a year (most of them children), and conflict and disease in Congo since the mid-1990s have left an estimated five million dead and hundreds of thousands of women and girls raped and have driven more than a million people from their homes.”
Do you believe Kakutani’s reasoning is sound, or is he engaging in a thinking error (logical fallacy) in his assertion? If his thinking is sound, why? If he is thinking in error, how would you explain his error to him? Can you name the fallacy he uses? (Hint: See the list of fallacies in Resources.) [100-200 words]