Critical Thinking Touchstone 4_ BPaone

.docx

School

Western Governors University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

168

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SuperRock13048

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone Page 1 Name: Brittany Paone Date: 12/28/2023 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: Zoos should are ethical places to have. Conclusion #2: Zoos are not ethical places to have. 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 Zoos play a role in wildlife conservation for critical and endangered species, savings animals and the like from poaching, habitat loss, and other human induced threats. Zoos provide a role in education and awareness , offering unique opportunities for the public to learn about different animals and habitats throughout the world. Zoos contribute to scientific research and study. By closely monitoring the animals under their care, zoos can gather valuable data on behavior, reproduction, and health. Zoos also care directly for injured and sick animals, providing a safe area for rehabilitation. Zoos should receive more public and community support to continue their conservation and

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone Page 3 educational efforts.* Therefore, well-managed zoos serve as important institutions for conservation, public education, and contribute towards further scientific research and study. Argument #2 Zoos may cause harm to animals. Zoos place animals in restrictive and artificial environments that may cause the animal significant stress and psychological harm. Depending on the animal, zoos may not be able to replicate the habitat or space that an animal needs to roam and socialize. The argument that zoos contribute to conservation efforts is questionable. While some zoos participate in breeding programs for endangered species, the percentage of successful reintroductions into the wild is relatively low ( The Conservation Mission of Zoos). Efforts and resources should be allocated to preserving and restoring natural habitats, which is a more sustainable approach to conservation.* Zoos educational benefits are questionable. The limited time visitors spend observing animals in confined spaces often fails to convey the complex realities of their natural habitats and focuses on the entertainment factor for the patrons instead. Zoos can face unethical practices , like capturing animals around the world, trading exotic species, and improper handling and care of have been documented in zoos. Therefore, the argument against the existence of zoos rests on the ethical concerns surrounding animal welfare, dubious educational value, questionable conservation contributions, and the evidence of unethical practices. 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) Deductive reasoning follows a general principle and works towards specific instances, while inductive arguments are based on specific examples and observations that lead to a general conclusion. Thus, the arguments presented are inductive rather than deductive. 2. Identify either a deductive rule of inference or an inductive practice that helps support your conclusion. Explain The argument against or for zoos follows an inductive generalization approach, using specific observations about zoos (conversation efforts, educational resources,

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