What flaws are in their reasoning?

Write a three-paragraph essay that (a) reconstructs a philosophical argument from one our readings this semester (see paper topics, below), and (b) presents a cogent critique/objection of that argument. In order to complete these objectives, follow the guidelines explained below.Paragraph 1: Introduction. After briefly stating and referring to the theme or topic of your paper, here you will present a thesis statement that specifies (a) the philosophical argument you will be discussing as well as (b) the critique of that argument you will be making. Your thesis statement shows that your argument makes a consistent overall point. An adequate thesis statement might take the following form: Against [insert philosopher’s name] argument that X, I will raise the objection Y. The introduction MUST, to receive full credit, include a thesis statement.Paragraph 2: Reconstruction. In this section, you will explain a philosophical argument from one of the paper topics below. Your task is to summarize a philosophical view in your own words while, at the same time, also providing ample textual evidence and citations for your discussion. (Parenthetical citations with page numbers and/or paragraph numbers at the end of the sentence are sufficient.) Thus, while it is essential for success on this section that you provide textual support for your explanation of a philosopher’s view, it is not enough that you simply quote the philosopher. You must also explain the view in your own words, demonstrating your own understanding of their position. Here your overall task is to show you understand the philosophical position and that you can explain the reasoning of another philosopher.Paragraph 3: Objection. Here you will object to the philosopher’s argument. After you’ve shown that you understand what this philosopher is claiming, now it is your turn to present one objection to or critique of that argument. Recall that an objection is either (a) a challenge to the truth of a premise, or (b) a challenge to the overall inference from premises to conclusion. In other words, this is an objection to the philosopher’s reasoning. Your objection must be connected to the argument given by the philosopher as you have previously reconstructed their claims. Here you show you understand how to argue against another point of view. After the second paragraph where you showed you can understand another argument, now you are showing you can effectively argue against someone else. What flaws are in their reasoning? In what way is their conclusion not well-supported?Thesis statement: The moral skepticism of Joan Didion is based on the belief that all people are inherently violent and evil. Moral skeptics challenge the truth of moral judgments, which implies that we lack the ability to distinguish between what is “good” and “wrong.” Since we cannot survive in a world without social norms, I believe that we have some in our lives that can be deemed “right” or “wrong” under specific circumstances.