Critical Thinking Touchstone 4 Janie Craig

.docx

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

Report
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
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