Critical Thinking Touchstone 4 Janie Craig
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Capella University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
COM1000
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by CommodorePenguin2708
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Page 1
Name: Janie Craig
Date: 02/11/24
Critical Thinking Final Touchstone
In this assignment, you will make two contrasting normative arguments about what one ought to do. Both
arguments will be about the same topic, and so at least one of the arguments is likely to be something you don't actually agree with. You will compose the arguments in standard form—that is, as a series of statements that end with your conclusion. Reminder: Do not write as an essay!
Part I. Select your topic and arguments.
a.
Choose a topic from the following list:
●
Should people eat meat?
●
Should marijuana be legal?
●
Should pet cats be kept indoors?
●
Should zoos exist?
●
Should customers leave a tip in a coffee shop?
●
Should seat belt wearing be mandatory?
●
Should children be required to take gym/PE classes?
●
Should public roads be used for private car parking?
b.
Write two logically contradictory normative conclusions for the topic. You do not need to agree with both (or either!) conclusions, but you should be able to logically support both of them.
The conclusions need not
be phrased exactly the same as they are phrased in the topic list, but they do
need to be logically contradictory to one another. For example, if you selected the topic "Should people eat meat?", your conclusions might be:
●
People should not eat meat.
●
People should eat meat.
But it would also be acceptable to choose:
●
People should reduce their meat consumption. ●
People need not reduce their meat consumption.
c.
These conclusions will be the final line of your argument. If you revise a conclusion after writing the argument, you should revise the conclusion here to match.
Conclusion #1: Zoos should exist Conclusion #2:
Zoos should not exist Part II. Write your arguments in standard form.
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Page 2
a.
Standard form is a series of numbered statements. Each should be one sentence long. The final statement is the conclusion. You do not need to label statements as premises or conclusions
; it is understood by the form of the argument that all statements are premises except the final one, which is always the conclusion.
b.
There should be at least one normative
statement (stating what people should do) and at least one descriptive statement (describing something to be true). Statements that predict outcomes or describe what people believe are not normative. A good way to determine if a statement is normative is looking for verb phrases like “should,” “ought,” or
“have an obligation to.”
c.
If any of your premises make factual statements that are not common knowledge and widely accepted, include a source supporting your reference. This can be an APA citation or just a link to a reputable website or publication. Here is a helpful resource for APA references.
d.
Place an asterisk (*) by the normative
premise(s) that support the conclusion.
e.
Do not use your conclusion as a premise. This is the fallacy of “begging the question.”
f.
There may be a subargument
within your argument, a conclusion reached by premises that then becomes a conclusion that supports your premise. If there is a subargument, underline the subconclusion
. g.
The conclusion should be the final statement in your argument (as given above) and begin with the word “therefore.” These should correspond to the conclusions from Part 1.
h.
The complete argument (including conclusion) should be 5-7 statements.
Argument #1: Zoos Should exist. 1.
Zoos have been around for a long time and have been normalized.
2.
2.Some zoos are bad but some should exist as they are good, they take animals that have been endangered and keep those animals safe.* 3.
Some zoos help these endangered animals repopulate.
4.
Great Zoos give animals enough room to play in a larger enclosure rather than a smaller one.
5.
Zoos are fun places for children and adults.
6.
Zoos are safe places for animals to escape from poachers in the
wild.
7.
Therefore, some Zoos should exist within our world. Argument #2 Zoos should not exist.
1.
Zoos have of course been normalized but they hold animals in small enclosures this has been proven to cause stress within animals. 2.
Zoos capture non-endangered species
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Page 3
and hold them captive this is wrong. 3.
Zoos should not exist as they can have harsh living conditions for animals that are
meant to be free. *
4.
Zoos can be harmful to all animals and spread disease among animals quickly.
5.
Zoos can be an unsafe space for careless
people. 6.
Therefore, Zoos should not exist in this day in age only wildlife preserves. Part III. Reflection
1.
Are your arguments deductive or inductive? Explain what the difference is between the two and why you see your argument as inductive or deductive. (2 sentences)
An inductive argument is when the premises provide only a good reason to believe the conclusion is probably true.
A deductive argument is when the premises establish the truth of the conclusion. My argument is inductive as it could very well
be true and is backed up by a few facts. However, this argument is not solid and is also biased. 2.
Identify either a deductive rule of inference or an inductive practice that helps support your conclusion. Explain
what the rule or practice means and how it was used to reach your conclusion. (2-3 sentences)
An inductive practice makes observations and
patterns to conclude. Therefore, I say that this
is an inductive practice since observations were made about Zoo's pros as well as cons in both arguments. 3.
What moral framework do you use to justify your normative conclusions (utilitarian, deontological, or virtue ethics)? Explain the meaning of the moral framework and how adopting that perspective leads to your conclusion. The two arguments do not
need to follow the same moral theory. (4-6 sentences)
I chose to use utilitarianism in my main argument as wildlife preserves or good zoos that assist almost extent animals is a good thing. It justifies zoos and how they may help most animals. I cannot say for everything but as far as keeping animals safe from potential poachers the ends could justify the means for
most animals.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Page 4
4.
What assumptions are you making that may compromise your arguments? Use language from the tutorials that identify cognitive and unconscious biases. This should be about your experience, not a general response about potential biases. (4-6 sentences)
I am assuming most animals are not happy in
my second argument. There have been studies of animals and the potential mental issues it may cause. However, seeing as we cannot personally ask every animal and such,
they may feel safe and happy. This is where I am biased as I would want the animals to be safe but also happy even if they are animals. 5.
What opinion did you have when you began this assignment, and what challenges to critical thinking did you encounter when arguing for a conclusion you didn't agree with? How
did logic and critical thinking help you to think about your topic from two different angles? This should be about
your personal experience, not a general response about the challenges of considering other points of view. (4-6 sentences)
I did not have a specific opinion on all of these besides seat belts. I see both sides of every potential argument. The topics were very 50/50 for me honestly. As this did happen, I could see each side, so I chose to do Zoos. It was a random pick as I could not necessarily choose one. In my personal experience, I have enjoyed small enclosure zoos, but I have also had the joy of large ones with endangered animals or animals that need a little more help and have been rescued. I am still 50/50 on zoos. I do, however, believe that only larger ones should exist to provide the animals with the best life possible while in captivity. Refer to the checklist below throughout the Touchstone process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.
1. Argument Preparation
❒
Is each argument in standard form, not paragraph form?
❒
Do your two arguments have logically contradictory conclusions?
❒
Is each argument at least five declarative sentences, ending in a conclusion?
❒
Does each argument have a normative conclusion (saying what people ought to do)?
❒
Is there at least one normative premise that supports each conclusion?
2. Annotating Your Argument
❒
Did you place an asterisk (*) on the normative premise(s) that support your conclusion?
❒
Did you underline any subconclusions in your argument?
❒
Are there sources for any assertions that are fact-based and not well known/accepted?<
3. Reflection Questions
❒
Did you answer all five of the reflection questions satisfactorily?
❒
Do your answers meet the length requirement and fully answer the question?