Critical Thinking Assignment Essay

The catalogue from Salvador Monella to the Board of Directors addresses the rising costs of employee healthc be benefits at Penn-Mart. His communication includes an rendering of his purpose in addressing the healthc atomic number 18 costs, findings regarding Penn-Marts benefits costs, a recommended program to implement for cost inflameduction, and a intelligence containing support for their recommendation. term some business people whitethorn be tempted to simply assume the entropy presented in Mr. Monellas muniment, it is my opinion, after reading Br knowledgee and Keeleys Asking the Right Questions (2012), that adopting a minute thought approach is the most effective way to evaluate the document. Using a detailed mentation approach to evaluate this business document allow help a reader to know when to accept and when to reject in classation they are presented.The reader knows that randomness that passes the critical thinking apparent motions they ask is expense acce pting. Implementing strong-sense critical thinking and using the same skills to evaluate all selects, even ones own, prevents falling to conventionality. In the xth edition of Asking the Right Questions (Browne & Keeley, 2012), thither are ten critical questions to ask that are presented. The ten questions are What are the issues and the conclusions?, What are the reasons?, Which words or phrases are ambiguous?, What are the cheer and descriptive assumptions?, Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?, How good is the evidence?, Are there rival ca functions?,Are the statistics deceptive?, What significant information is omitted?, What reasonable conclusions are likely? (Browne & Keeley, p. 9) After ask and evaluating each of these questions, a reader will have a solid basis on which to steady down if Mr. Monellas recommendations should be accepted. It is my opinion that his recommendations should non be accepted until more information is supportd. separately of the ten crit ical thinking questions will be evaluated in order to demonstrate how this conclusion was reached.The first question a critical brain must(prenominal) ask when reading is, What are the issues and conclusions? (Browne & Keely, p. 18) As a reader, it is all- big(a) to spot the issue the author is discussing and the conclusion they have drawn in order to successfully form an opinion regarding the information presented. The issue is the topic that an author is addressing, while the conclusion is the message they intend to get down to the reader.There are two types of issues- descriptive issues and prescriptive issues. A descriptive issue poses questions regarding descriptions of the past, present, or future. normative issues pose questions intimately actions that should be interpreted, what is ethical or moral, and what is good or bad they are issues that take on prescriptive answers. In the memorandum, Mr. Monella presents a descriptive issue that requires an answer to describ e how the work place will be in the future. How can Penn-Mart control the cost of employee health care benefits? The conclusion presented is to implement a impudent wellness program call the take aim thoroughly program.The second question that must be address is, What are the reasons? (Browne & Keeley, p. 29) Reasons are the statements an author provides that support or justify their conclusion. As the book states, you can non determine the worth of a conclusion until you identify the reasons. (p. 29) In order to identify the reasons supplied by an author, a critical judgment must ask why the author believes their conclusion. In the memorandum, the reasons stated support the conclusion of initiating a consume Well program. The memorandum states that information indicates that individuals who voluntarily miss their health account for the greatest impact on the growth in benefits costs. The data includes smokers, individuals who do not exercise, and those who avoid preventative care in the company 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.Other reasons provided by the memorandum are that the initiatory aligns with other earthly concern health world-classs, there have been other studies on obesity, the initiative will provide initiative for employees to adopt healthier lifestyles, and it will make employees feel better or so themselves. After identifying the basic structure of a message, a critical thinker must ask, What words or phrases are ambiguous? (p. 40) An ambiguous word or phrase is one that has multiple possible meanings.equivocal words or phrases in an argument create the need for clarification of the meaning before a reader can fully evaluate the argument. When reading a document such as the memorandum, it is implemental to mark ambiguous words or phrases in statements as they occur. The ambiguous terms identifi ed in the memorandum have been italicized. The objective of the Get Well program is tohelp them identify issues that they could mitigate on their own to become more fit. (p. 2) The Get Well initiative completely aligns with other current public health and fitness objectives (p. 2)There have been numerous look studies on obesity published in scholarly journals. (p. 2) We firmly believe that many Penn-Mart employees want to get fit and that the Get Well initiative will provide the requisite incentives Giving a blood sample and filling out a survey form is not intrusive or burdensome these are two things that people do routinely. Those who might oppose Get Well are either unfit, or they have something to hide. (p. 2) These recommendations have been good researched and represent state-of-the-art in our field. (p. 2) Each of the italicized phrases can either have multiple meanings, or is not specific enough to use to determine the statements validity. For mannikin, the suggested prog ram is mean to help identify employee health issues, however different people whitethorn consider different things to be health issues.While one somebody may consider smoking to be a health issue, others may not. totally aligning with objectives may mean that initiatives are designed by the same person, implemented for the same group of people, and intended to accomplish the same goal 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, What are the revalue and descriptive assumptions? Assumptions are beliefs that are generally taken for granted that support the reasoning and conclusion of an argument. Value assumptions demonstrate a preference for one value over another. Descriptive assumptions demonstrate beliefs about the world. In the memorandum both value and descriptive assumptions are demonstrated. The value assumption dem onstrated is equality versus individualism. Mr. Monella states that is unfair to young, healthy people to let employees unequally use healthcare insurance resources. This demonstrates a preference for individualism over equality.The descriptive assumption in the memorandum involves beliefs about Penn-Marts healthcare benefits strategy and controlling 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, 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 multiple fallacies in the memorandum. First, the authors claim that the Get Well will make Penn-Mart employees feel better about themselves, which appeals to emotions. The memorandum states that the recommendations have been exhaustively researched and represent state-of-the-art in our field, whi ch appeals to questionable authority the researchers and qualifications for being state of the art have not been specified. Those who might oppose Get Well are claimed to be either unfit, or they have something to hide, which attacks person rather than ideas.The net statement, to quote 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, How good is the evidence? (p. 92) The memorandum cites data 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 entire population. Cited published research studies on obesity appeal to authority. A research study is used as evidence with data from underwr iters is cited twice. The 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 benefits could be a biased survey. Are there rival causes? (p. 128)This question helps evaluate an arguments 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 drive by causes such as an aging workforce with tenure. However, other possible causes exist, such as pretension for common medical procedures such as physical examinations. The memorandum also demonstrates thefundamental attribution flaw by citing individuals who voluntarily neglect their health (p. 1), although there may be other reasons they do not exercise, such as preexisting conditions like arthritis. While statistics may seem like impressive additions to an argument, they may also be deceptive. They frequently do not prove what they appear to prove. (p. 142) Knowing the unreliableness of statistics makes it important for a critical thinker to ask, are the statistics deceptive? (p. 142)Statistics stating that wages and benefits make up roughly 40 percent of Penn-Marts annual budget are cited, however 40% is not clearly outlined or accurately identified. Also cited is data from underwriters indicating that participation in voluntary health benefits programs peaked at 5% of total FTEs in 2006 (p. 1), but what does 5% of total FTE amount to? The 5% is once more 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 arguments reasoning, a critical thinker must ask, what si gnificant information is omitted? (p. 153) For example, in Penn-Marts situation, the potential long-term negative effects of the Get Well program are omitted. Could the program have negative consequences?The suggestions state that employees who do not approve with the terms of Get Well should be given the possibility of paying a fine, declining future healthcare benefits, resigning, or being fired. However, the memorandum does not address what the consequences might be of the majority 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 whole 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 mult iple conclusions that are possible given the reasoning of an argument.For example, one conclusion to the Penn-Mart situation is that the Get Well program is the best tooth root to rising healthcare costs. Another conclusion may be that there is another program that may be a better fit for Penn-Mart. After asking and evaluatingall 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 arguments 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 adviser company should not be accepted. There are too many ambiguous terms and fallacies employ to determine that the argument is strong enough for acceptance.ResourcesBrowne, M. N., & Keeley, S.M. (2010). Asking the right questi ons A guide to critical thinking (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson/Prentice Hall.