What philosophical school (virtue ethics, natural law, consequentialist, deontological) does their argument fall within, and/or does it mix approaches?

1)What is the issue?2)What are the “positions” on the issue as portrayed by the essays that we’ve read (what is the argument/point made by each author)a)What do they bring to the table as support for their position?b)What philosophical school (virtue ethics, natural law, consequentialist, deontological) does their argument fall within, and/or does it mix approaches?3)Where are the possible holes of their argument?a)Factual (are their axioms flawed or requiring further precision or argumentation? Are their citations of cases fundamentally unrealistic (“red herring”) or irrelevant?b)Logical (are there ways in which the truth of their premises does NOT make their conclusions necessary?)4)our job here is to understand as thoroughly as we can the way in which a philosopher thinks their way around an issue. Using sentences of the sort that begin with “I like” or “I am convinced by” or “X makes a really good point when they say” are prejudicial to the project of understanding.