n and Yaron Brook) argue that human rights and interests are beyond animal rights, but this argument is totally invalid because human beings and animals have equal right to lead peaceful lives.
First of all, the authors label the animal rights activists as terrorists and this proves their bias against activism based upon equality and compassion towards other living things. Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook state that, “It is common to write off terrorist activity and the vicious statements of animal rights leaders as “extremist”, while maintaining that majority of people in the animal rights movement have benevolent intentions” (n.pag.). Within this context, the authors depend upon Rational Appeals by pointing out the importance of scientific experimentation as tool for survival. To be specific, the authors attract the readers’ attention towards deadly diseases and declare that the activists are not allowing conducting experiments. Besides, the authors make use of Emotional Appeals to influence the readers. For instance, the authors point out the violence and bloodshed created by the activists, but conceals the grass-root level reasons behind the same. The authors proclaim that, “Ominously, the crimes against Huntingdon are not isolated incidents. animal rights terrorists commit more than 1,000 crimes annually” (n.pag.). Besides, the authors quote scientific journals to prove their argument. This can be considered as the visible example of manipulation, i.e. the misuse of available information to back-up one’s invalid argument. Similarly, the authors depend upon Ethical Appeals to influence the readers. For instance, the authors serve at The Ayn Rand Institute, and this esteemed status as experts within the field of reasoning is cunningly utilized to influence the readers in general.