Critical Thinking Final Touchstone
In this assignment, 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.
Reminder: Do not write as an essay!
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.
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.
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. (4-6 sentences) Enter answer here.
What assumptions are you making that may compromise your arguments?(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.
