Final answer:
Olson challenges the first argument against animalism by denying that human traits like rationality and self-awareness necessarily separate us from being animals, potentially identifying a naturalistic fallacy in the reasoning.
Step-by-step explanation:
In responding to argument 1 against animalism, Olson replies by challenging the premises of the argument which suggests that since we are rational, self-aware beings, we are essentially different from other animals which may not share these traits.
Olson questions the notion that reason or self-awareness grants a unique status to humans that separates us from being animals. He may argue that although humans have the ability to reason and are self-aware, these qualities do not necessarily mean we are not animals as well, given that we share many biological characteristics with other animals.
Furthermore, Olson could highlight that the conclusion drawn from the premise of human rationality to the exclusion from the animal category commits a naturalistic fallacy, inferring what ought to be from what is, an issue famously discussed by David Hume as the is-ought problem. In essence, Olson's reply would likely confront both the factual and logical underpinnings used to argue against animalism.