Janavi Final template
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Austin Community College District *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2302
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by janviminshariya9
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Page 1
Name: Janavi Minsharya
Date: 01/22/2024
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.
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Page 2
Conclusion #1: It is advisable for people to consistently wear their seatbelt when driving a vehicle.
Conclusion #2:
There is no requirement for individuals to use seatbelts.
Part II. Write your arguments in standard form.
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
1.Adhering to the legal mandate of wearing a seatbelt is a necessary obligation. Therefore, it is crucial to follow the law and make sure to wear a seatbelt while operating a vehicle.
2.The primary purpose of airbags is to supplement the utilization of seat belts, rather than acting as a replacement for them. As a result, it is crucial to employ both these components together to ensure the preservation of human life.
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Page 3
3.In 2020, the majority of deaths among occupants of passenger vehicles, specifically 51%, were linked to the absence of restraint usage. This highlights that a substantial percentage of individuals lost their lives because they did not wear seatbelts.
4.In 2017, the use of seatbelts resulted in the saving of 14,955 lives, providing evidence
for the effectiveness of seatbelts in preserving lives.
5.Using a seatbelt is the best measure to protect oneself in the event of a vehicular collision. Therefore, it is crucial to buckle up your seatbelt.
Argument #2
1.People should not be forced to wear their seatbelt. Individual autonomy is a fundamental human right that enables individuals to make decisions and take actions at their discretion. 2.Therefore, it is crucial to set aside personal beliefs and follow the practice of wearing a seatbelt.
3.Every year, thousands of lives are lost because of seat belts. Therefore, it is recommended to avoid wearing them.
4.Every individual has the right to reject any health-related recommendation from authority figures. However, drivers are required to use seatbelts even if they are unwilling due to health concerns. Therefore, it is unjust to violate our individual rights by mandating seatbelt use.
If a car accident leads to submersion in water, the seatbelt could hinder the occupant's ability to exit as the vehicle sinks. As a result, there is a high likelihood of being trapped inside the vehicle and succumbing to drowning.
5.Wearing a seatbelt might obstruct the smooth and flexible maneuvering of a vehicle. Therefore, the use of such safety gear hinders one's driving skills and should be refrained from to allow unimpeded arm movement.
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)
My claim supporting the use of seatbelts is grounded in deductive reasoning. Both facets of my argument showcase solid statistical evidence and fundamental support.
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)
Conditional elimination is a commonly used logical principle in my arguments. By presenting factual information, I validate the soundness of my conclusion.
3.
What moral framework do you use to justify your normative conclusions (utilitarian, deontological, or virtue ethics)? Explain the meaning of the The justification for the enforcement of seatbelt usage reflects deontological ethics, where not wearing a seatbelt is considered a breach of the law. Adherence to laws is
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
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)
generally perceived to lead to positive outcomes. On the contrary, the argument against seatbelt use is rooted in virtue ethics, where decision-making is influenced by personal values and beliefs about virtuous and righteous behavior.
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)
There are specific assumptions in my position
advocating for seatbelt use that might pose a risk to the validity of my argument. Subconsciously, I carry the belief that it is the right choice. Therefore, the arguments supporting seatbelts may exhibit greater strength in comparison to those against them.
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)
Maintaining neutrality while presenting arguments from both viewpoints proved to be a challenging undertaking. It involved considering the possible reasons for an individual's hesitation to use their seatbelt. Upon closer examination, I have formulated counterarguments to my initial stance. It was crucial for me to take a critical approach, analyzing the argument from that specific standpoint with rationality.