Both Kim Brooks (in the excerpt from Small Animals) and Lenore Skenazy (in her essay "My Free Range Parenting Manifesto ") (note that Small Animals is a book and "My Free Range Parenting Manifesto" is an essay and format accordingly) discuss how a common societal view that children are in imminent danger when not supervised may actually harm both parents and children. The two authors use different writing styles and techniques to make their argument, and it's clear that Brooks implies an argument while Skenazy comes out and declares one, but in the end, they both appear to be pleading for a less fear-based approach to parenting. **In a total of two paragraphs consisting of 8-10 sentences each, please consider how effective one or both of these texts is/are in making and supporting their argument against fear-based parenting. Again, you may focus exclusively on one essay or evaluate both. In order to be successful, you do NOT need to address all the questions below one by one. Instead, think about the below questions before writing as a way to get you thinking and analyzing about how these authors structure and give evidence for their main points. It also may be that you generate enough thought and analysis to create your response by focusing only on one or two of the below questions, so don't feel you have to address every single one in a systematic manner. Questions to Get You Thinking: How do the authors support their arguments? Is their evidence fair, balanced, consistent, and convincing? Why or why not? How do issues related to structure and style--how they frame and present their argument--affect whether or not you find their arguments convincing? In the end, do you think the authors are successful in their desire to potentially change how the reader might view or judge parents and children? Why or why not?