[Andre607]

> I’ve created a set of three simple statements (with supporting references) that represent the fundamental arguments that brought me to veganism:

>It’s unnecessary for humans to consume animal products, i.e. we can thrive on a vegan diet [1, 2, 3].

> Consuming animal products is one of the largest individual contributions to climate change [4, 5, 6].

> Consuming animal products results in slaughtering ~75 billion sentient farm animals each year — animals that want to live [7, 8].

> Logically, from the above three points, it follows that consuming animal products is unnecessary and causes destruction to the environment as well as billions of sentient animals.

Logically, this is textbook circular reasoning or a tautological fallacy. The author's three points are that consuming animal products is unnecessary and causes destruction to the environment as well as billions of sentient animals. To then say that the _exact same three things as the three points_ follow from those same three points is circular reasoning.

[colanderman]

The blog post may benefit from an editor, but those three points are supported by the footnotes, whose very references – but not content – you included in your quotation. The footnotes themselves constitute more than half the post and include citations of published studies.

[yesenadam]

True enough - instead of "Logically, from the above three points, it follows that", just "In short," or something would be far better.