Passage Summary: Since some animals actually follow 'rules' of conduct (like not attacking a submissive peer), we shouldn't assume they don't have rights just because we think only humans have morals.

Conclusion: It is incorrect to claim that animals lack rights based on the idea that only humans can follow moral codes.

Reasoning: Certain animals, like wolves and dogs, follow specific behavioral rules regarding submission that mirror moral constraints.

Analysis: The philosopher's strategy is to challenge the factual basis of the opponent's premise. By providing examples of animals (wolves, foxes, dogs) that exhibit rule-following behavior, the philosopher suggests that 'obeying rules' is not a uniquely human trait. This undermines the justification used to deny animals rights. Focus on how the argument uses specific biological observations to counter a broad philosophical generalization about human uniqueness.