MGT10002- FINAL ASSIGNMENT S2 2022
This Assignment has three Sections worth a total of 50 marks (50 % of Final Grade)
Section A: Argument mapping exercise (15 marks)
Read the following article and answer the questions listed in regard to argument mapping.
Major push from Liberal National coalition for Australia to scrap its ban on nuclear power
The Liberals will consider pushing to end Australia's ban on Nuclear power believing it could
boost energy security and reduce power prices.
Leader Peter Dutton has launched a review into whether the party should back nuclear power
at the 2025 federal election.
Despite being emissions free, nuclear power has been banned in Australia since 1998 under
Commonwealth laws and would require both sides of politics to agree to reverse the ban.
While the Coalition now discusses backing nuclear, Labor remains opposed, insisting that
solar, wind and hydro-electric power are cheaper and faster forms of low emissions energy.
Announcing his internal policy review on Tuesday, Mr Dutton said nuclear power could
provide the 'reliable, emissions-free, base-load electricity Australia needs'.
It comes after energy prices soared due to rising demand for coal and gas prompted by the
early onset of winter and Russia's war on Ukraine.
'Sixty per cent of the capacity of our coal-fired generators is expected to leave the market by
2030,' he said in a statement.
‘If we are serious about reducing emissions, while at the same time maintaining a strong
economy and protecting our traditional industries, all technologies need to be on the table.’
‘Nuclear plants also potentially have a long-life span, and now forecast to last up to 100 years.
By contrast replacement of renewables such as solar panels and wind turbines need to occur
every 10 -20 years.’
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese however has already pledged to reduce Australia's
emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels.
But Mr Albanese wants to achieve these aims by expanding solar, wind and hydro power
without needing nuclear.
Mr Albanese also queried why after nearly a decade in government and relentless opposition
to alternative energy options that the Liberal coalition are now spruiking the benefits of
Nuclear power.
MGT10002 - Critical Thinking in Management S2 2022
MGT10002- FINAL ASSIGNMENT S2 2022
Key National Party figures such as former leader Barnaby Joyce and leader David Littleproud
have been vocal about the benefits of nuclear power.
Last year Mr Joyce described the nation as 'living in a cave' when it comes to the nuclear issue
and has called for a repeal of laws blocking its introduction.
'I believe we should have nuclear power... and if people want zero emissions – well, this, this
is it,' he said.
'I mean, you have your wind, you can have your solar, but if you want baseline, deliverable,
24/7 zero-emission power, then nuclear does it.'
But opponents, including Labor and the Greens, say nuclear power is too expensive, with a
large plant costing $40 billion, negating any comparable business case that would see any
long-term savings on energy costs.
They also argue that any transition to Nuclear has an excessive time lag, potentially decades
away. This is time we don’t have in light of advancing climate change the opponents have
stressed.
They also brand it dangerous and bad for the environment as it produces waste that must be
buried.
Nuclear power also has a PR problem following major catastrophic accidents and incidents at
reactors such as Three-Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011).
But in 31 countries around the world more than 450 nuclear power plants are connected to
the grid.
France counts on nuclear power for 75 percent of its electricity and earns three billion Euros a
year as a net exporter to other European nations because of its low cost of generation.
The French made the decision to embrace nuclear technology way back in the 1970s, after the
OPEC oil crisis.
The US, Russia, China, the UK and Canada all include nuclear power in their energy mix. Some
of their reactors are powered by uranium from Australia which currently produces one third
of the world’s supply.
By Charlie Moore, Daily Mail Australia 3rd August 2022 (abridged)
MGT10002 - Critical Thinking in Management S2 2022
MGT10002- FINAL ASSIGNMENT S2 2022
Questions
1. Present elements of an Argument Map that you can associate with the information
provided in the article.
a) What is the conclusion? (2 marks)
b) What are three premises to support the conclusion? (6 marks)
c) What could be two objections? (4 marks)
d) What could be a rebuttal? (1 mark)
2. Choose any two of Paul & Elder’s universal standards and evaluate the quality of
the argument advanced in article. (2 marks)
In answering question 2, you should adopt a critical thinking approach, which demonstrates
Paul & Elder’s (2014) universal intellectual standards of:
a. Clarity – The presentation of the argument is clear.
b. Accuracy – The facts being presented are accurate, and any assumptions
have been clearly identified.
c. Precision – The information being presented is specific.
d. Relevance – The evidence provided is relevant to the conclusion.
e. Depth – The information provided reflects the complexity of the issue being
discussed.
f. Breadth – The argument examines the evidence from multiple perspectives.
g. Logic – The supporting premises are logically connected to the conclusion.
h. Significance – The supporting evidence is important, and not trivial or
superficial.
i. Fairness – The viewpoints of others are presented sympathetically and are
not distorted, nor oversimplified.
MGT10002 - Critical Thinking in Management S2 2022
MGT10002- FINAL ASSIGNMENT S2 2022
Section B: Critical thinking exercise (20 marks)
Read the following article and answer the questions listed in order to analyse it. You should
adopt a critical thinking approach in viewing the case from sensemaking, CSR, evidence-
based management and ethical considerations.
Do we care enough about COVID?
The COVID-19 pandemic has already generated its own mythology. In Australia, our COVID-
19 myth is about a cohesive and caring society that patiently endured lockdowns, border
closures and other ordeals. Like many myths, ours has some foundation in reality. You might
ignore the empty toilet paper shelves in the local supermarket, but it still has its own force.
It might be especially potent in Melbourne, where the restrictions were most severe and
prolonged.
The COVID-19 myth is now presenting its puzzles to true believers. If you imagined we all
pulled together for the common good, and because we have the good sense to look after
our own health, you are likely to find it strange that we are now apparently prepared to
tolerate dozens of deaths in a day. The total COVID death toll is now above 11,000.
More than tolerate: there has been a preparedness to pretend nothing out of the ordinary is
happening.
All of this seems a far cry from those days when we experienced horror as the number of
new infections rose above a few dozen a day, a few hundred, and then a thousand or so.
Have our senses been blunted, our consciences tamed?
Public discourse is never neutral. It is always a product of power. Some people are good at
making their voices heard and ensuring their interests are looked after. Others are in a weak
position to frame the terms of debate or to have media or government take their concerns
seriously.
The elderly – especially the elderly in aged-care facilities – have carried a much larger
burden of sacrifice than most of us during 2020 and 2021. They often endured isolation,
loneliness and anxiety. They were the most vulnerable to losing their lives – because of the
nature of the virus itself, but also due to regulatory failure and, in a few places, gross
mismanagement.
Casual and gig economy workers, too, struggle to have their voices heard. Yet the conditions
of those in poorly paid and insecure work have been repeatedly identified as a problem for
them as well as for the wider community, because they are unable easily to isolate.
MGT10002 - Critical Thinking in Management S2 2022
MGT10002- FINAL ASSIGNMENT S2 2022
Up to this point, however, our democracy has spoken: we want our pizzas delivered and we
want to be able to head for the pub and the restaurant. And we are prepared to accept
several casualties along the way to have lives that bear some resemblance to those of the
pre-COVID era.
The “we” in this statement is doing a lot of heavy lifting. There is a fierce debate going on
about whether governments – and by extension, the rest of us – are doing enough to
counter the spread of the virus. Political leadership matters enormously in these things.
In the years following the second world war, Australia’s roads became places of carnage, as
car ownership increased and provision for road safety was exposed as inadequate. It peaked
around 1970, with almost 3,800 deaths – more than 30 for every 100,000 people. Road
fatalities touched the lives of many Australians.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the coming of mandatory seatbelt wearing and random breath-
testing helped bring the numbers down. Manufacturers made their cars safer. Public
campaigns urged drivers to slow down and stay sober. These were decisions aimed at
avoiding avoidable deaths, despite the curtailment of freedom involved.
These decisions were also in the Australian utilitarian tradition of government, “whose duty
it is to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number” – as the historian W.K.
Hancock famously explained in 1930. The citizen claimed not “natural rights”, but rights
received “from the State and through the State”. Governments made decisions about how
their authority could be deployed to preserve the common good and protect individuals –
from themselves as well as from others.
Governments have during the present surge so far been willing to take what they regard as
a pragmatic position that the number of infections and fatalities is acceptable to “the
greatest number”, so long as “the greatest number” can continue to go about something
like their normal lives.
But this utilitarian political culture also has its dark side. It has been revealed persistently
throughout the history of this country – and long before anyone had heard of COVID-19 – as
poorly equipped to look after the most vulnerable. The casualties of the current policy are
those who have consistently had their voices muted and their interests set aside during this
pandemic – and often before it, as well.
These are difficult matters for governments that would much prefer to get on with
something other than boring old pandemic management. The issue is entangled in electoral
politics – we have just had a federal contest in which major party leaders studiously ignored
the issue, and the nation’s two most populous states are to hold elections in the next few
months. Governments also realise that restrictions and mandates will meet civil
disobedience.
MGT10002 - Critical Thinking in Management S2 2022
MGT10002- FINAL ASSIGNMENT S2 2022
But COVID cannot be wished away. At a minimum, governments need to show they are
serious about it to the extent of spending serious money on a campaign of public
information and advice on issues like mask-wearing and staying home when ill. They usually
manage to find a sufficient stash of public money ahead of each election when they want to
tell us what a great job they’ve been doing. They might now consider whether something
similar might help to save lives.
Frank Bongiorno
26th July 2022
From the Conversation (Abridged)
Questions
1) Considering and discussing three of Clegg’s characteristics of sensemaking, what is
your interpretation of this article? (6 marks)
2) Align the leaders of the government of Australia to the justifications of Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) in their response to this situation described in the
article. How would you advise them? Discus two justifications (4 marks)
3) a). Using the steps of EBM (Evidence Based Management) discuss how the leaders
of the government of Australia might approach the statement `we need to do
more to counter the spread of COVID’ (5 marks)
Note; you need to examine the current level of decision making and strategy in this
article and potential improvements to this strategy.
b). Using and applying two ethical frameworks (other than Utilitarianism), discuss
how the leaders of the government of Australia might justify their decision-making
on the issue described in the article. (5 marks)
MGT10002 - Critical Thinking in Management S2 2022
MGT10002- FINAL ASSIGNMENT S2 2022
Section C: Case study analysis (15 marks)
Read the following case and answer the questions listed in order to analyse it. You should
adopt a critical thinking approach in viewing the case from multiple perspectives and ethical
considerations.
Sue is a senior manager at a small market research company. One of her team members,
Jason, is responsible for conducting social media trend analyses. His job involves analysing
what people are talking about on social media, particularly in relation to the companies they
serve as clients. Their clients see this service as invaluable, as it enables them to gain rapid
customer feedback about their products and services.
Previously, the trend analysis was a long and laborious process, involving reading thousands
of online posts and summarising the key themes. Realising this was an inefficient method,
Jason began developing a new approach in his spare time. As he had considerable expertise
in programming, he began to work on a hobby project to streamline his work. He wrote a
program that would automatically trawl social media for relevant content and show which
words and phrases were occurring most frequently. While he would still have to write some
commentary about the trends his program detected, this new program made his job
considerably easier.
One day, Sue received a visit from Jason. Having grown considerably in experience and
credibility, Jason informed her that he was going to resign to start up his own analytics
consultancy. Sue was very pleased for Jason, since she had grown to like and respect him
over the years they had worked together.
Sue realised that she would have to manage the transition carefully. She knew that Jason
would not be able to take any of their clients, as his contract specifically prohibited him
from walking away with their business. However, whether Jason should be allowed to walk
away with the software he developed was very controversial.
She approached her colleagues and received conflicting advice about what to do. Some
managers strongly opposed allowing Jason to keep his software. They argued that he had
developed it on company time and using their equipment, and in the service of his job. The
loss of the software would also make the job of Sue's team a lot more difficult. Replacement
of the software would be costly and require new training of their remaining team members.
On the other hand, other managers suggested that Jason should be allowed to walk away
with it. They observed that the intellectual property clauses of Jason's contract were vague.
And while Jason developed the program to make his job easier, he did not produce it under
Sue's directive (or even her knowledge, until Jason showed it to her one day).
MGT10002 - Critical Thinking in Management S2 2022
MGT10002- FINAL ASSIGNMENT S2 2022
Sue knew that she had a dilemma on her hands. How should she resolve it?
Questions
1) What is the main issue being presented in this case study? (2 marks)
2) Who are the key stakeholders in this case, and what impact could the issue have on
them? (3 marks)
3) What approaches could the main character take to resolving this issue? Describe at
least two approaches. (4 marks)
4) Which approach do you believe that the main character should adopt? In
answering this question, you should draw on information provided in this case study,
as well as the ethical frameworks discussed in this course. (6 marks)
Word expectations/limits
Section A Question 1 requires `short answers’ e.g. one to two sentences each
Question 2 requires `short answers’ e.g. 30 words limit each
Section B Questions 1 and 2 requires `short answers’ e.g. 150 words limit each
Questions 3 a and b - 250 -300 words limit each
Section C Questions 1 and 2 - Short answers e.g. 40 words limit each
Question 3 -150 words limit
Question 4 - 250 -300 words limit
MGT10002 - Critical Thinking in Management S2 2022
