Critical Thinking Touchstone

Page 1

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone

Name: Juan Carlos Wiski Liranzo.

Date: 7/26/2024.
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 seat belt wearing be
● Should marijuana be legal? mandatory?
● Should pet cats be kept indoors? ● Should children be required to take
● Should zoos exist? gym/PE classes?
● Should customers leave a tip in ● Should public roads be used for
a coffee shop? 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: Seat belt wearing should be mandatory.

Page 2

Conclusion #2: Seat belt wearing should not be mandatory.
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. Preserving the security and welfare of the general public is the main goal of legislation.
2. Statistics show that wearing a seat belt greatly lowers the risk of injury and death in
auto accidents.
3. Seat belt rules can lower the financial strain on healthcare systems by lessening the
degree of injuries sustained in auto accidents.
4. If seat belt requirements are followed, there is a greater chance that drivers and
passengers will act responsibly and safely.
5. Consequently, the use of a seat belt should be mandatory.
Argument #2
1. Wearing a seat belt is one of the choices that individuals should be able to make for
their own safety.
2. It is possible for government intervention in personal safety decisions to lead to a
slippery slope of increasing government control over individual freedoms.
Page 3

3. When certain types of accidents occur or certain medical conditions are present, seat
belts may cause harm.
4. Without legal mandates, education and awareness programs can encourage the use
of seat belts.
5. The use of seat belts should therefore not be required.
1. Are your arguments deductive or Because the premises in both arguments

inductive? Explain what the difference offer evidence for the conclusions but do not
is between the two and why you see prove them beyond a reasonable doubt, they
are inductive. Although the premises imply
your argument as inductive or
that the conclusions are plausible and likely,
deductive. (2 sentences) they do not logically require the conclusions.
2. Identify either a deductive rule of Both sides of the debate over whether seat
inference or an inductive practice that belt use should be required apply inductive
helps support your conclusion. Explain reasoning techniques. The first argument
supports the conclusion that seat belt
what the rule or practice means and
legislation should be required by citing
how it was used to reach your statistical evidence demonstrating how seat
conclusion. (2-3 sentences) belts minimize injuries and fatalities. The
second defense of mandatory seat belt use
invokes individual rights by highlighting a
person's independence and autonomy.
3. What moral framework do you use to Using the utilitarian framework, the case for
justify your normative conclusions seat belt use requirements centers on
(utilitarian, deontological, or virtue maximizing overall well-being. Mandating
seat belt use benefits society overall by
ethics)? Explain the meaning of the
lowering injuries, fatalities, and medical
moral framework and how adopting expenses. On the other hand, deontological
that perspective leads to your ethics, which emphasizes respecting
conclusion. The two arguments do not individual autonomy and personal freedom, is
need to follow the same moral theory. the foundation of the argument against
(4-6 sentences) making seat belt use mandatory. According to
this viewpoint, people should be free to
choose their own level of safety without
interference from the government. Therefore,
the deontological viewpoint maintains that
making one's own decisions is a basic moral
obligation, whereas the utilitarian approach
favors seat belt rules as necessary for the
greater good. Based on the fundamental
ideas of each framework, distinct conclusions
are reached.
Page 4

4. What assumptions are you making By focusing on data that emphasizes the
that may compromise your advantages of seat belt use and disregarding
arguments? Use language from the counterarguments or situations in which they
could be harmful, confirmation bias may have
tutorials that identify cognitive and
an impact on my decision to support
unconscious biases. This should be mandatory seat belt regulations using a
about your experience, not a general utilitarian framework. Furthermore, I could be
response about potential biases. (4-6 demonstrating availability bias by favoring
sentences) dramatic facts about car accidents that are
easily obtainable in the media. However, if I
were to argue against mandatory seat belt
legislation from a deontological standpoint,
my own value of individual freedom might
have an impact, which could cause me to
anchor my argument and emphasize personal
autonomy too much. There may also be a
status quo bias, in which I oppose legislation
modifications because I value my freedom of
choice over additional safety requirements.
5. What opinion did you have when you Prior to starting this assignment, I thought
began this assignment, and what that seat belt use ought to be required for
challenges to critical thinking did you everyone's safety and welfare. Opposing this
conclusion, however, forced me to consider
encounter when arguing for a
the benefits and drawbacks of government
conclusion you didn't agree with? How interference as well as the significance of
did logic and critical thinking help you human autonomy. I had to get over my
to think about your topic from two confirmation bias and take into account
different angles? This should be about arguments and points of view that I had not
your personal experience, not a previously agreed with. I was able to
general response about the methodically examine the matter from both
utilitarian and deontological angles thanks to
challenges of considering other points
logic and critical thinking, which also helped
of view. (4-6 sentences) me recognize the intricacy of the argument
and the merits of both side's arguments. My
viewpoint was widened and the significance
of striking a balance between personal
freedom and public safety was emphasized
by this process.
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?
Page 5

❒ 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?

Critical Thinking Touchstone

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Thinking Touchstone

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Thinking Touchstone

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone

Name: Juan Carlos Wiski Liranzo.

Critical Thinking Final Touchstone

Part I. Select your topic and arguments.

a. Choose a topic from the following list:

● People should not eat meat.

But it would also be acceptable to choose:

● People should reduce their meat consumption.

Conclusion #1: Seat belt wearing should be mandatory.

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone

Part II. Write your arguments in standard form.

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone

1. Are your arguments deductive or Because the premises in both arguments

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone

❒ Is each argument in standard form, not paragraph form?

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone

2. Annotating Your Argument

❒ Did you answer all five of the reflection questions satisfactorily?

You might also like