Touchstone 4 Critical thinking

Overview

Name: Enter your name here.

Date: Enter the date here.

First, you will make two opposing normative arguments about what one ought to do. These arguments will be in standard form, a series of statements that end with your conclusion. Do not write as an essay or in paragraph form!

See the assignment page for an example.

Part I. Select your topic and arguments.

1. 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 wearing a seatbelt be mandatory?
• Should children be required to take gym/PE classes?
• Should parking be allowed on busy public streets?

1. 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 conclusions.
2. For example, if you selected the topic "Should people eat meat?" your conclusions might be:

• People should not eat meat.
• People should eat meat.
• People should not eat meat.
• People may eat meat.

But it would also be acceptable to choose:

• These conclusions will be the final line of your arguments.

Part II. Write your arguments in standard form.

1. Standard form is a series of numbered statements; each is one sentence. The final statement is the conclusion.
2. Place an asterisk (*) by the normative premise(s) that support each conclusion, a statement that declares what people or institutions ought to do. There should be at least one normative premise in each argument.
3. If any of your premises make factual statements that are not common knowledge and widely accepted, include a source supporting your reference.
4. The complete argument (including conclusion) should be 5-7 statements.

See the assignment page for an example and links to the tutorials that go into more detail.

Argument #1 Insert your first argument here.

Argument #2 Insert your second argument here.

Part III. Reflection

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)	Enter answer here.
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)	Enter answer here.
What moral framework do you use to justify your normative conclusions (utilitarian, deontological, or virtue ethics)? Explain the meaning of the 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)	Enter answer here.
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)	Enter answer here.
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)	Enter answer here.