First one: Reconstruct and assess (logically evaluate) Peter

First one: Reconstruct and assess (logically evaluate) Peter Singer’s main argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality.’ After reading and answer the following questions. 1. What are the main arguments he makes? What is his main hypothetical case he appeals to in his argument? Explain the case. Does he make any analogies? If so, what are the terms of the analogies? Explain these terms. What conclusions does he draw from them? 2. Is the argument deductive or inductive? Sound or unsound (if deductive)? Why? How strong or weak is it (if inductive)? Why is it strong or weak? [Arguments from analogy and the standards for assessing them are found in UA8 on p. 267-271. In UA7, you can find these on p. 263 and following. You can also view the recording of our online lecture in module 8 for standards of assessment.]3. Do you agree with Singer’s argument? Why or why not? (You might have some members who agree and some who disagree. Make sure you explain the reasons for the agreement and disagreement.) Second one: Read Tommie Shelby’s ‘Is Racism in the ‘Heart’?’ and answer the following questions. 1. According to Tommie Shelby in ‘Is Racism in the Heart?’ what is J. Garcia’s definition of racism? The essay is found in the Course Readings section of Blackboard.2. What is Tommie Shelby’s critique of Gracia’s definition? Explain your answer. [One technique he uses for refuting Garcia’s definition is found in UA8, p. 384ff. Also see the lessons online on forms of refutation.] What is one example from contemporary society which Shelby would classify as racist? Explain why you think he would do so.3. Do you agree with Shelby’s critique? Why or why not?