# data[].attributes.body
[Critical Previewing]

[I analyze the title’s strong wording to detect bias and consider the author’s background with PETA to anticipate a persuasive, possibly one-sided argument]

[The phrase “No Reason” suggests a strong opinion. Knowing Rajt is an animal rights activist, I expect limited acknowledgment of opposing views like humane or cultural meat consumption]

# data[].attributes.body
- When I preview the article, I first look at the title and the opening lines to get a general idea of the topic.

- I also skim the headings and the first paragraph to understand what the article will discuss.

- While doing this, I focus on important keywords such as “animals,” “vegan,” and “environment” to anticipate the content.

- For example, when I read the title “There’s No Reason to Eat Animals,” I expect the article to argue that eating meat is unethical or unnecessary.

# data[].attributes.body
- As a critical reader, I go beyond just skimming. I analyze the title carefully, noticing that the strong phrase “No Reason” shows the author’s intention to persuade and suggests a biased viewpoint.

- I also consider the author’s background—knowing that Lindsay Rajt is an activist affiliated with PETA helps me understand the perspective she might take.

- This makes me question what viewpoints might be missing from the article and who the intended audience is.

- For instance, because the author is part of PETA, I expect a one-sided argument, so I pay attention to how, or if, opposing views are addressed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PETA exposes animals suffering in laboratories, in the food industry, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry.

# data[].attributes.body
- When I ask basic questions while reading, I focus on simple inquiries like who, what, and why. I try to identify the author’s main point and look for the evidence used to support it.

- For example, I might ask, “What reasons does Rajt give for avoiding meat?” or “Does she focus more on health issues or ethical concerns?”

# data[].attributes.body
- As a critical reader, I go deeper by questioning why the author is making these claims now and who benefits from this perspective.

- I also consider what counterarguments might be missing or oversimplified and whether the sources cited are trustworthy.

- For instance, Rajt claims that meat production causes 51% of greenhouse gas emissions, citing Goodland and Anhang. I question if this figure is widely accepted and whether she overlooks other scientific studies that might offer different data.

# data[].attributes.body
- When making basic connections, I relate the article to my personal experiences or prior knowledge.

- For example, reading Rajt’s article reminds me of a video I once watched about the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses by The Guardian. I also compare what I’m reading with similar texts on veganism or factory farming.

# data[].attributes.body
- As a critical reader, I go further by comparing Rajt’s claims with opposing arguments, such as the idea of “humane meat.”

- I consider the broader economic, cultural, and global contexts and challenge my own assumptions—for instance, questioning the belief that eating meat is normal or necessary.

- For example, while Rajt criticizes humane meat, I recall a documentary that praised local farmers for ethical practices which name "The Biggest Little Farm"(2019). This makes me wonder which perspective is more accurate and how different cultures might be affected by veganism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Biggest little Farm

Directed by
John Chester

Written by

Produced by

Starring

John Chester

Molly Chester

Cinematography

John Chester

Benji Lanpher

Mallory Cunningham

Chris Martin

Kyle Romanek

Edited by

Amy Overbeck

Music by
Jeff Beal

Distributed by
Neon

92 minutes

Country

United States

Language

English

Box office

$5 million[2][3]

The Biggest Little Farm is a 2018 American documentary film, directed by John Chester. The film profiles the life of John Chester and his wife Molly as they acquire and establish themselves on Apricot Lane Farms in Moorpark, California.

The film premiered on September 1, 2018, at the Telluride Film Festival. It had its second screening at the 2018 Toronto International Film Festival, where it was named second runner-up for the People's Choice Award: Documentaries. It was selected as the Opening Night film at Doc NYC in November 2018. The film was screened as part of the Spotlight Section at the 2019 Sundance Film Festival. It also screened at the 29th New Orleans Film Festival on October 24, 2018.

The film was acquired for theatrical distribution by the independent film company Neon, and was released on May 10, 2019 in Los Angeles and New York. The film expanded into Austin, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Minneapolis, Nashville, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., on May 17 and additional markets throughout May and June. The film was acquired by The Exchange for international distribution.

A sequel special, The Biggest Little Farm: The Return, was released in 2022 on Disney+.

In 2010, married couple Molly and John Chester decide to leave their old lives in Los Angeles behind and purchase a 234-acre farm near Moorpark in neighboring Ventura County, California. Rechristening it "Apricot Lane Farms", the couple spends the next seven years transforming the arid landscape into a fully functional farm and biodiverse habitat for neighboring flora and fauna. They face hardship as the difficulties of keeping a farm running mount up, often resulting in frustration and anger, but also happiness at their harmonious relationship with nature.

On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 91% based on 100 reviews with an average rating of 7.2/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Uplifting, educational, and entertaining, The Biggest Little Farm is an environmental advocacy documentary with a satisfying side dish of hope for the future." On Metacritic, it holds a 74 out of 100 score (indicating "generally favorable reviews") based on 25 critics.

In his review of the film, Peter DeBruge noted that it "feel[s] like fresh air for the soul.", and New York Times critic Glenn Kenny wrote "it may also revive your wonder at the weird but ultimately awe-inspiring ways in which humans can help nature do its work". Additionally, The Los Angeles Times's Robert Abele wrote that the film is a "lush tour of transformed land and photogenic fauna, is so appealing as a chronicle of dedicated do-gooders who actually did good (and shot every frame of it). [...] Watching the Chesters fight past disillusionment to learn the real lessons of harvesting in communion with nature is what gives the movie its rousing, illuminating power."

Several reviewers were critical of the film's lack of specifics on the initial investment and economics of the farm.

On December 4, 2019, the film's composer, Jeff Beal, conducted the Hollywood Chamber Orchestra, performing his score live to picture at the Wiltern Theater in Los Angeles.[citation needed ]

A list of nominations and awards the film has received is as follows:

Boulder Film Festival - Grand Jury Prize for Feature Length Film

Boulder Film Festival - Best Documentary

Annapolis Film Festival - Audience Award for Best Feature Documentary

Gasparilla Film Festival - Grand Jury Prize for Best Feature Documentary

92nd Oscars Shortlist - Documentary Feature

The film is distributed by Energia in Latin America. It is currently available for streaming in Netflix Latin America as "Mi gran pequeña granja".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Biggest little Farm Directed by John Chester Written by Produced by Starring John Chester Molly Chester Cinematography John Chester Benji Lanpher Mallory Cunningham Chris Martin Kyle Romanek Edited by Amy Overbeck Music by Jeff Beal Distributed by Neon 92 minutes Country United States Language English Box office $5 million[2] [3] The Biggest Little Farm is a 2018 American documentary film, directed by John Chester.

# data[].attributes.body
- As I read about the suffering of animals, I think about my family who likes to eat meats everyday. I've never really thought about where that meat comes from or what its life was like. The author's words make me feel a little uncomfortable and conflicted about a habit I've always taken for granted.

- The author claims that eating animals is "neither moral nor green." This directly contradicts a recent article I read in a science magazine that argued for the environmental benefits of certain types of "regenerative" or grass-fed livestock farming called "Meat-eaters may have a bigger climate footprint than we thought" by Grist. This difference in claims makes me question which source is more credible and what evidence they are using.

- The article's claim that animal agriculture contributes to climate change connects directly to the global conversation about environmental sustainability and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I can see how the author's viewpoint fits into larger political and economic debates, such as government subsidies for farming or international climate agreements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The sneaky way even meat lovers can lessen their climate impact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mixing vegetables into processed meat can lower emissions — without compromising taste.

# data[].attributes.body
- The article's title itself is a direct challenge to the widespread belief that eating animals is natural, necessary, and morally acceptable. The author's core argument is that modern animal agriculture is unethical and environmentally destructive, which directly opposes the cultural norms and personal habits of most people.

Belief: Meat is an essential part of a healthy diet.

Article's Challenge: Rajt suggests that a plant-based diet is not only sufficient but also more ethical. The article implies that the health benefits often attributed to meat can be found elsewhere without the associated harm.

Belief: Animals are a food source for humans.

Article's Challenge: The author personifies animals, describing them as having feelings, families, and a desire to live. This framing directly challenges the belief that animals are simply resources, instead presenting them as beings with interests and rights.

- A critical reader won't take the article's claims at face value. They would seek out and compare them with sources that hold different viewpoints.

Rajt's Argument in the Article: Eating animals is a moral issue due to their suffering, implying that the industry operates without concern for animal welfare.

A Conflicting Source from the NCBA: Instead of a single report, a critical reader would find information from the organization's official website. For example, the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program is a major initiative by the NCBA. Its website and materials (like the "BQA Handbook" or articles about the program) state that it is a "voluntary, producer-led program" that provides "best practices" and "training" to ensure the humane treatment of cattle. The program's core message is that ranchers care about their animals and that good animal care leads to a safe, quality product.

The Comparison: A critical reader would compare the two narratives. Rajt's article focuses on the outcome of animal agriculture (suffering) and frames it as an ethical failure. The NCBA's BQA program, on the other hand, focuses on the intent and processes of the industry (training, standards, and care) and frames animal welfare as a core business practice. The act of comparing these two sources—one arguing for animal rights and the other for industry responsibility—is a fundamental part of critical reading.

- The article makes a clear connection between eating meat and negative ethical outcomes. A critical reader would ask why this connection is being made and what other connections might exist.

Connection: The article links meat consumption to animal suffering.

Critical Question: Why does this link exist? It exists because the author's primary goal is to advocate for animal rights. She purposefully selects and highlights information that strengthens this connection, such as descriptions of crowded cages and emotional distress, while ignoring information that might weaken her argument.

- Analyzing power relationships involves looking at who holds power in the food system and how that power influences the information we receive.

Who has the power? Large agricultural corporations, lobbying groups, and the government agencies that regulate them hold immense power. They control the production, marketing, and distribution of food.

Rajt's Position: As a PETA spokesperson, Lindsay Rajt represents a group with limited power compared to the meat industry. Her article is a form of activism designed to challenge that power by appealing directly to consumers' ethics.

Analysis: The fact that Rajt is writing this article is itself an act of resistance. She is attempting to shift power away from corporations and toward the individual consumer by empowering them to make ethical choices. Her voice, while often passionate, represents a counter-narrative to the dominant power structures in the food industry.

# data[].attributes.body
- When I summarize at a basic level, I focus on the main ideas of the article. In this case, Rajt argues that animals suffer in the meat industry, meat production harms the environment, and a plant-based diet is a better and more ethical choice.

- I restate the conclusion simply: eating meat is unnecessary and harmful.

- For example, I might say, “Rajt believes we should stop eating animals for both ethical and environmental reasons.”

# data[].attributes.body
- As a critical reader, I go beyond restating her points. I evaluate how strong her arguments are and notice what she emphasizes or leaves out. I ask whether her conclusion is well-supported and if she addresses counterarguments fairly. I also think about how someone with a different background or viewpoint might summarize the article differently.

- For instance, while Rajt makes a powerful ethical argument, she downplays economic and cultural challenges to going vegan. She also doesn’t explore issues like food access or individual health needs.

- A critical summary would point out these gaps and recognize that the topic is more complex than the article suggests.

# data[].attributes.body
[Previewing / Skimming]

[I look at the title and skim the introduction to get a quick idea of the topic]

[The title "There’s No Reason to Eat Animals" tells me the article will argue against meat-eating, probably for ethical reasons]