Descriptively accurate. Wolves, foxes, and domesticated dogs are counterexamples to the (other people’s) premise that only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules.

Descriptively inaccurate. Reasoning by induction is where specific instances are used to generalize up to a broader conclusion. The author’s point about wolves, foxes, and dogs isn’t to prove via induction that therefore all animals possess some form of morality.

Descriptively inaccurate. The author does not cast doubt on this principle. In fact, the author may agree with this principle. The author is merely establishing that this principle doesn’t preclude some animals (e.g., wolves, foxes, and dogs) from having rights.

Descriptively inaccurate. If the author were trying to do this, he would have to argue:

If animals didn’t have rights, a logical contradiction would result. We can’t accept logical contradictions. Therefore, animals have rights.

That’s not the author’s argument.

Descriptively inaccurate. Seems to be just the opposite. The author’s point is that the concept of morality is erroneously applied too narrowly to just human beings. He argues that it should also apply to some animals (wolves, foxes, and dogs).