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.
Compose the arguments in standard form—that is, as a series of statements that end with your conclusion.
Part I. Select your topic and arguments.
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?
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.
Conclusion #1: Enter your first conclusion here.
Conclusion #2: Enter your second conclusion here.
Part II. Write your arguments in standard form.
What are the premises of your argument? There should be at least one normative statement and at least one descriptive statement, but ideally there will be 5-7 premises.
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.
Place an asterisk (*) by the normative premise(s) that support the conclusion.
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.
The conclusion should be the final statement in your argument and begin with the word “therefore.” These should correspond to the conclusions from Part 1.
Argument #1
Insert your first argument here.
Argument #2
Insert your second argument here.
Part III. Check your work.
Is each argument in standard form, not paragraph form?
Do your two arguments have substantially different conclusions?
Is each argument at least seven 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?
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?
Part IV. Reflection
Are your arguments deductive or inductive? Explain why. (2 sentences) Enter answer here.
Identify one of the rules of inference that you used in your arguments. Explain how the rule of inference 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 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? These may be cognitive or unconscious biases. (4-6 sentences) Enter answer here.
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? (4-6 sentences) Enter answer here.
