West Oakland residents do not necessarily believe that removing the freeway is a good idea.

The article for the case https://grist.org/article/oakland-california-freeway-removal-interstate-980/The Case:As you read in the article, city politicians and community organizers have raised the possibility of removing the inner-city freeway, I-980, which connects downtown Oakland and the historically black neighborhood of West Oakland. West Oakland residents do not necessarily believe that removing the freeway is a good idea.Your Assignment:Please write a short essay (approximately 200 words) in which you evaluate the plan to remove the segment of the freeway. You should take into account both the positive environmental benefits that could result from the highway’s removal, and the interests of West Oakland residents.Use an argument by analogy to support your conclusion.In your concluding discussion, please discuss how your argument relates to moral skepticism.***For detailed instructions on case study assignments, see this note about case studies.Your short essay should include these components: A short summary of the issue you will discuss.A moral argument that contains several premises and a moral conclusion. Please write the premises and conclusion in a numbered list, following the format modeled in Chapters 1 and 2 of the textbook.A concluding discussion.Please don’t forget to an argument by ANALOGY to support your conclusion also In your concluding discussion, please discuss how your argument relates to moral SKEPTICISMI would send you some pages from the book.I have an example from the previous please do it similarly but this example has 2 arguments please follow instruction On June 1, 2017, Trump announced he would be withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is a nonbinding accord dealing with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation agreed upon by 197 countries to combat climate change. Having such an agreement signed by as many countries was significant because the climate crisis will have powerful impacts around the world, making it important to be tackled on simultaneously by the masses.Argument 1 – Virtues or Vices1. It is morally good to act out of civic virtue, meaning promoting the common good for the sake of the common good.2. As President of a country, Trump has a role-based obligation to act in the best interest of the nation and its citizens. 3. Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement puts lives at risk as the climate crisis continues to worsen and negatively impact the nation.4. It is selfish of a President to pull out of such an agreement that ultimately leads to a better state of affairs for the people he is supposed to represent and protect.5. By reneging on the accords, Trump is not promoting the common good. ∴ 6. It is morally wrong for Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Argument 2 – Intermediate Moral Principle1. The President of a country has a role-based obligation to act out of the good for the nation and its citizens.2. The President is permitted to make the decisions he believes will most benefit the country. ∴ 3. It is morally permissible for Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, given that he believes it does more harm than good to the country.In regards to Argument 1, it is morally wrong for Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because the climate crisis will worsen the lives of the people that he is supposed to represent and protect. As President of a country, Trump has a role-based obligation to act in the best interest of the citizens of the nation. Reneging from the Paris Agreement puts our country in a position of distrust with the potential to spread the erosion of this trust by more countries in the future, promoting the vice of selfishness. Representing a significant country in the global status, Trump should take into consideration how his actions affect and influence others. The climate crisis will become catastrophic in the near future and so it is morally wrong for Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.Regarding Argument 2, the moral principle of always choosing better consequences over worse ones can be broken down a little further. In this situation where the President is made in charge of making decisions out of acting in the best interest of the nation, that is open to interpretation. A person can still act in the best interest of the common good even if it may not be what is agreed upon by everyone to be the best actions. Being that Trump is the elected official responsible for such decisions, factoring in the intermediate moral principle that he is making the decisions that he believes to be the best for the country, it is morally permissible for Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement if he really believes it does more harm than good to the nation.