'Critical Thinking Assignment Essay\r'

'The account from Salvador M peerlesslla to the Board of Directors addresses the rising costs of employee wellnessc be benefits at Penn-M contrivance. His communication includes an explanation of his purpose in addressing the healthc atomic number 18 costs, findings regarding Penn-Mart’s benefits costs, a recommended course to enforce for cost reduction, and a discussion containing support for their recommendation. slice some business people may be tempted to simply accept the nurture presented in Mr. M 1lla’s memo, it is my opinion, after reading Browne and Keeley’s inquire the Right Questions (2012), that adopting a lively intellection commence is the most effective way to judge the document. apply a decisive thinking approach to evaluate this business document de spell help a reader to know when to accept and when to reject breeding they be presented.\r\nThe reader knows that information that passes the critical thinking oral sexs they sol icit is worth accepting. Implementing firm-sense critical thinking and exploitation the analogous skills to evaluate all claims, even one’s own, prevents falling to conventionality. In the decennary dollar billth version of Asking the Right Questions (Browne & Keeley, 2012), in that location ar ten critical misgivings to ask that atomic number 18 presented. The ten questions are: What are the issues and the remainders?, What are the precedents?, Which haggling or phrases are uncertain?, What are the evaluate and descriptive surmisals?, Are thither any fallacies in the ratiocination?, How good is the evidence?, Are there contention ca offices?,\r\nAre the statistics deceptive?, What evidentiary information is omitted?, What fairish closures are possible? (Browne & Keeley, p. 9) After postulation and evaluating each of these questions, a reader will move over a solid basis on which to break up if Mr. Monella’s recommendations should be acc epted. It is my opinion that his recommendations should non be accepted until to a greater extent than information is provided. Each of the ten critical thinking questions will be evaluated in rate to indicate how this conclusion was reached.\r\nThe first question a critical intellect moldiness ask when reading is, â€Å"What are the issues and conclusions?” (Browne & Keely, p. 18) As a reader, it is important to list the issue the cause is discussing and the conclusion they extradite drawn in order to successfull form an opinion regarding the information presented. The issue is the egress that an author is addressing, while the conclusion is the message they pin down to convey to the reader.\r\n on that point are dickens types of issues- descriptive issues and prescriptive issues. A descriptive issue poses questions regarding descriptions of the past, present, or future. Prescriptive issues pose questions astir(predicate) actions that should be taken, what is honest or moral, and what is good or bad; they are issues that require prescriptive answers. In the memorandum, Mr. Monella presents a descriptive issue that requires an answer to describe how the work abode will be in the future. How can Penn-Mart tally the cost of employee health bring off benefits? The conclusion presented is to implement a new wellness course of instruction call the â€Å" line up advantageously” program.\r\nThe second question that must be addressed is, â€Å"What are the reasons?” (Browne & Keeley, p. 29) Reasons are the statements an author provides that support or justify their conclusion. As the hold up states, â€Å"you cannot determine the worth of a conclusion until you pose the reasons.” (p. 29) In order to expose the reasons supplied by an author, a critical thinker must ask wherefore the author debates their conclusion. In the memorandum, the reasons stated support the conclusion of initiating a â€Å" encounter We ll” program. The memorandum states that info â€Å"indicates that individuals who voluntarily flunk their health account for the greatest impact on the growth in benefits costs.” The information includes smokers, individuals who do not exercise, and those who avoid preventative care in the group in question. The second reason given is that the program will make employees more aware of their own health status and identify issues they can improve to become more fit.\r\n early(a) reasons provided by the memorandum are that the opening move aligns with early(a) public health initiatives, there go for been former(a) studies on fleshiness, the initiative will provide initiative for employees to adopt healthier lifestyles, and it will make employees step unwrap about themselves. After identifying the basic expression of a message, a critical thinker must ask, â€Å"What words or phrases are ambiguous?” (p. 40) An ambiguous word or phrase is one that has bigem inal possible importations. Ambiguous words or phrases in an parametric quantity create the need for light of the meaning before a reader can fully evaluate the blood line. When reading a document such(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as the memorandum, it is helpful to mark ambiguous words or phrases in statements as they occur. The ambiguous wrong identified in the memorandum have been italicized. â€Å"The clinical of the ‘ work Well’ program is to…help them identify issues that they could mitigate on their own to become more fit.” (p. 2) â€Å"The ‘ repay Well’ initiative completely aligns with new(prenominal) current public health and fitness intentions…” (p. 2)\r\nâ€Å" in that location have been numerous interrogation studies on obesity published in scholarly journals.” (p. 2) â€Å"We firmly believe that some(prenominal) Penn-Mart employees want to get fit and that the ‘Get Well’ initiative will provide the undeniable incentives… Giving a blood sample and change out a survey form is not intrusive or burdensome †these are two things that people do routinely. Those who might oppose â€Å"Get Well” are either unfit, or they have something to hide.” (p. 2) â€Å"These recommendations have been thoroughly researched and represent state-of-the-art in our field.” (p. 2) Each of the italicized phrases can either have sixfold meanings, or is not specific enough to use to determine the statement’s validity. For example, the suggested program is mean to help identify employee health â€Å"issues,” however un ilk people may consider different things to be health issues.\r\nWhile one person may consider smoking to be a health issue, others may not. â€Å"Completely align[ing]” with objectives may mean that initiatives are designed by the alike(p) person, implemented for the like group of people, and intended to accomplish t he same close; however it also may mean that it has the same general objective. Each ambiguous term has the same possibility of containing various meanings. Next a critical thinker must ask the fourth critical question, â€Å"What are the value and descriptive assumptions?” Assumptions are beliefs that are generally taken for granted that support the system of logical thinking and conclusion of an air. Value assumptions demonstrate a tasting for one value over another(prenominal). Descriptive assumptions demonstrate beliefs about the world. In the memorandum both value and descriptive assumptions are present. The value assumption demonstrated is equality versus individualism. Mr. Monella states that is unfair to young, healthy people to let employees unequally use health care insurance resources. This demonstrates a preference for individualism over equality.\r\nThe descriptive assumption in the memorandum involves beliefs about Penn-Mart’s health care benefits st rategy and hold backling the cost of the employee healthcare program. It assumes that there are no other ways to control spending, other than by implementing the Get Well program. Fifth, a critical thinker must ask, â€Å"Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?” (p. 74) Fallacies are logic tricks an author may use to lure a reader into accepting their conclusion. There are ternary fallacies in the memorandum. First, the authors claim that the â€Å"Get Well” will make Penn-Mart employees feel better about themselves, which spells to emotions. The memorandum states that the recommendations have been thoroughly researched and represent state-of-the-art in our field, which appeals to questionable authority; the researchers and qualifications for being state of the art have not been specified. Those who might oppose â€Å"Get Well” are claimed to be either unfit, or they have something to hide, which attacks person rather than ideas.\r\nThe final statement, â⠂¬Å"to credit the famous Charles Darwin, ‘survival of the fittest’ is a natural part of evolution,” introduces a red herring. The next step in evaluating the conclusion is to ask, â€Å"How good is the evidence?” (p. 92) The memorandum cites information from underwriters that indicates individuals who voluntarily neglect their health account for the greatest impact employee healthcare benefits costs, which is the author using a case example as evidence. The underwriters believe that many Penn-Mart employees want to get fit, which generalizes the desires of a portion of the employees to the finished population. Cited published research studies on obesity appeal to authority. A research study is used as evidence with data from underwriters is cited twice. The â€Å"Get Well” program is claimed to make Penn-Mart employees feel better about themselves, generalizing from the research sample. Finally, an employee survey about satisfaction with their ben efits could be a biased survey. â€Å"Are there rival causes?” (p. 128)\r\nThis question helps evaluate an argument’s strength by examining any other reasonable causes for the event in question. Rival outcomes would provide different causes for the rising employee healthcare benefits costs at Penn-Mart. The memorandum states that the rise in benefits costs is driven by causes such as an aging workforce with tenure. However, other possible causes exist, such as inflation for common medical procedures such as physical examinations. The memorandum also demonstrates the constitutional attribution error by citing individuals who â€Å"voluntarily neglect their health” (p. 1), although there may be other reasons they do not exercise, such as preexistent conditions like arthritis. While statistics may seem like impressive additions to an argument, they may also be deceptive. They a great deal do not â€Å"prove what they appear to prove.” (p. 142) well-read the unreliableness of statistics makes it important for a critical thinker to ask, are the statistics deceptive? (p. 142)\r\nStatistics stating that wages and benefits make up roughly 40 percent of Penn-Mart’s annual budget are cited, however 40% is not clearly define or accurately identified. besides cited is data from underwriters indicating that participation in voluntary health benefits programs â€Å"peaked at 5% of total FTE’s in 2006” (p. 1), but what does 5% of total FTE sum up to? The 5% is again not clearly defined or accurately identified. Equally as significant as the information included in an argument is the significant information that is omitted. Omitting significant information from an argument shapes the reasoning in favor of the author. In order to judge the quality of an argument’s reasoning, a critical thinker must ask, what significant information is omitted? (p. 153) For example, in Penn-Mart’s situation, the potential lo ng-term ostracize effects of the Get Well program are omitted. Could the program have negative consequences?\r\nThe suggestions state that employees who do not comply with the terms of â€Å"Get Well” should be given the possibility of paying a fine, declining future healthcare benefits, resigning, or being zeald. However, the memorandum does not address what the consequences might be of the volume of employees refusing Get Well would be to Penn-Mart. If the company selects to fire those employees, they may lose many workers, causing the altogether organization to suffer. The final question to ask in the critical thinking model is, what reasonable conclusions are possible? (p. 163) As a critical thinker, the objective is to determine and accept the most reasonable conclusion(s) to an argument that most closely adheres to personal value preferences. There are frequently alternative conclusions or triune conclusions that are possible given the reasoning of an argument.\r\n For example, one conclusion to the Penn-Mart situation is that the Get Well program is the crush solution to rising healthcare costs. other conclusion may be that there is another program that may be a better fit for Penn-Mart. After asking and evaluating all ten of the critical questions to ask, I believe that I have determined the most reasonable conclusion. To determine the best conclusion, it would be necessary to obtain clarification about the ambiguous terms before evaluating the argument’s strength. Without that information it is not possible to make a firm opinion about the strength of reasoning. Until the clarification is provided, it is my opinion that the suggestions of the consultant company should not be accepted. There are too many ambiguous terms and fallacies employed to determine that the argument is strong enough for acceptance.\r\nResources\r\nBrowne, M. N., & Keeley, S.M. (2010). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking (10th ed.). Up per institutionalise River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.\r\n'