Crucial thinking job essay

The memorando from Rescatador Monella to the Board of Directors tackles the rising costs of employee healthcare benefits at Penn-Mart. His communication involves an explanation of his purpose in dealing with the health-related costs, findings regarding Penn-Mart’s benefits costs, a recommended plan to put into practice for price reduction, and a discussion containing support for recommendation. Even though some business people could possibly be tempted to simply accept the information presented in Mr. Monella’s memorandum, it is my opinion, after studying Browne and Keeley’s Requesting the Right Inquiries (2012), that adopting a crucial thinking procedure is the most effective way to judge the file.

Using a crucial thinking method to evaluate this kind of business file will help a reader to find out when to accept and when to reject info they are shown.

The reader knows that information that passes the critical pondering questions that they ask may be worth accepting. Employing strong-sense critical thinking and using the same skills to judge all says, even their own, stops falling to conventionality.

In the tenth edition of Asking the best Questions (Browne & Keeley, 2012), you will find ten important questions to ask that are shown. The ten questions happen to be: What are the problems and the findings?, What are the reason why?, Which words and phrases or terms are unclear?, What are the value and descriptive assumptions?, What are the fallacies in the reasoning?, How good is the data?, Are there compete with causes?

Will be the statistics deceptive?, What significant information can be omitted?, What reasonable results are conceivable? (Browne & Keeley, g. 9) After asking and evaluating all these questions, a reader will have a solid basis on which to make the decision if Mr. Monella’s advice should be approved. It is my opinion that his recommendations should not be approved until more details is presented. Each of the eight critical pondering questions will probably be evaluated to be able to demonstrate just how this summary was reached.

The first question a vital thinker need to ask when ever reading is usually, “What are definitely the issues and conclusions?  (Browne & Keely, l. 18) As a reader, that isimportant to spot the issue the writer is speaking about and the bottom line they have used order to effectively form a viewpoint regarding the info presented. The problem is the topic that the author is usually addressing, as the conclusion may be the message they will intend to express to the visitor.

There are two styles of issues- descriptive problems and prescriptive issues. A descriptive issue poses concerns regarding explanations of the previous, present, or future. Prescriptive issues create questions regarding actions that ought to be taken, what is ethical or moral, and what is good or bad; they are issues that require prescriptive answers. In the memorandum, Mister. Monella gives a descriptive issue that will require an answer to identify how the workplace will be later on. How can Penn-Mart control the price of employee health care benefits? The conclusion presented should be to implement a new wellness system call the “Get Well program.

The second question that must be addressed is definitely, “What will be the reasons?  (Browne & Keeley, g. 29) Reasons are the assertions an author gives that support or warrant their conclusion. As the book claims, “you are not able to determine the worth of the conclusion till you recognize the reasons.  (p. 29) In order to identify the reasons given by an author, a critical thinker must ask how come the author feels their bottom line. In the memorandum, the reasons mentioned support the conclusion of initiating a “Get Well program. The memorandum states that data “indicates that individuals who also voluntarily forget their well being account for the best impact on the expansion in benefits costs.  The data involves smokers, people who do not workout, and those who have avoid protective care in the group under consideration. The second reason presented is that the software will make workers more aware about their own well being status and identify problems they can increase to become healthier.

Other reasons offered by the comunicacion are the initiative aligns with other public well-being initiatives, there have been other research on weight problems, the initiative will provide initiative for employees to look at healthier life-style, and it will help to make employees feel better about themselves. After identifying the basic structure of your message, a vital thinker must ask, “What words or phrases are ambiguous?  (p. 40) An unclear word or perhaps phrase is one that has multiple conceivable meanings. Ambiguous words or perhaps phrases within an argument create the need for clarification of the which means before a reader can easily fully evaluate the argument. When ever reading a document such as the memorandum, it truly is helpful to tag ambiguous phrases or key phrases in claims as they happen. The unclear terms determined in the nota have been italicized. “The goal of the ‘Get Well’ system is to¦help them discover issues that they could reduce on their own to be more fit.  (p. 2) “The ‘Get Well’ initiative completely aligns with other current public health and fitness objectives¦ (p. 2)

“There have been numerous research studies on weight problems published in scholarly publications.  (p. 2) “We firmly believe many Penn-Mart employees like to get fit and that the ‘Get Well’ initiative provides the necessary incentives¦ Giving a blood sample and completing a study form is usually not intrusive or troublesome ” these are two things that individuals do often. Those who may possibly oppose “Get Well will be either unsuitable, or they have something to cover.  (p. 2) “These recommendations have already been thoroughly searched and represent state-of-the-art inside our field.  (p. 2) Each of the italicized phrases can have multiple meanings, or is certainly not specific enough to use to look for the statement’s validity. For example , the suggested plan is intended to aid identify worker health “issues,  nevertheless different people may possibly consider different things to be health issues.

While a single person may consider smoking to become a health issue, others may not. “Completely align[ing] with objectives might mean that pursuits are designed by same person, implemented for the similar group of people, and intended to complete the same goal; however it can also mean that they have the same general objective. Every ambiguous term has the same possibility of that contain various symbolism. Next a major thinker need to ask your fourth critical question, “What would be the value and descriptive presumptions?  Presumptions are philosophy that are generally taken for granted that support the reasoning and conclusion of the argument. Worth assumptions illustrate a preference for one worth over another. Descriptive presumptions demonstrate beliefs about the world. In the memorando both benefit and descriptive assumptions happen to be demonstrated. The worth assumption proven is equality versus individuality. Mr. Monella states that is unfair to young, healthy and balanced people to let employees unequally use health care insurance resources. This demonstrates a inclination for individualism over equality.

The detailed assumption inside the memorandum entails beliefs regarding Penn-Mart’s health-related benefits strategy and controlling the cost of the employee healthcare plan. It presumes that there are not any other ways to regulate spending, besides by employing the Obtain Well system. Fifth, a critical thinker need to ask, “Are there virtually any fallacies in the reasoning?  (p. 74) Fallacies are logic techniques an author may use to appeal a visitor into receiving their conclusion. There are multiple fallacies inside the memorandum. Initial, the authors claim that the “Get Well will make Penn-Mart employees feel better about themselves, which will appeals to feelings. The comunicacion states that the recommendations have already been thoroughly explored and represent state-of-the-art within our field, which usually appeals to suspect authority; the researchers and qualifications for being state of the art haven’t been particular. Those who might oppose “Get Well will be claimed to be either unsuitable, or they may have something to cover, which disorders person rather than ideas.

The ultimate statement, “to quote the famous Charles Darwin, ‘survival with the fittest’ can be described as natural part of evolution,  introduces a red herring. The next step in evaluating the conclusion is to inquire, “How good is the proof?  (p. 92) The memorandum cites data by underwriters that indicates individuals who voluntarily disregard their well being account for the highest impact employee healthcare benefits costs, which can be the author by using a case case in point as data. The underwriters believe that various Penn-Mart personnel want to get fit, which generalizes the wishes of a part of the employees towards the entire population. Cited released research studies upon obesity charm to authority. A research research is used because evidence with data by underwriters is definitely cited twice. The “Get Well system is believed to make Penn-Mart employees feel better about themselves, generalizing from the analysis sample. Finally, an employee study about satisfaction with their rewards could be a biased survey. “Are there rival causes?  (p. 128)

This problem helps examine an argument’s strength by simply examining any other reasonable triggers for the event in question. Opponent outcomes gives different causes for the rising worker healthcare benefits costs in Penn-Mart. The memorandum claims that the rise in benefits costs is driven by triggers such as an aging labor force with period. However , other possible triggers exist, just like inflation pertaining to common medical procedures such as physical examinations. The memorandum also demonstrates thefundamental attribution error by citing individuals who “voluntarily neglect their health (p. 1), however may be other reasons they do not exercise, such as current conditions like arthritis. While statistics may appear like impressive additions to an argument, they may become deceptive. They generally do not “prove what they apparently prove.  (p. 142) Knowing the unreliableness of figures makes it very important to a critical thinker to ask, are the statistics deceitful? (p. 142)

Statistics proclaiming that income and rewards make up around 40 percent of Penn-Mart’s annual spending budget are mentioned, however forty percent is not really clearly defined or perhaps accurately discovered. Also cited is data from underwriters indicating that involvement in non-reflex health benefits programs “peaked at 5% of total FTE’s in 2006 (p. 1), but what truly does 5% of total FTE amount to? The 5% is again not really clearly defined or accurately identified. Equally as significant as the data included in a spat is the significant information that may be omitted. Omitting significant data from a spat shapes the reasoning in favor of the author. To be able to judge the caliber of an argument’s reasoning, a critical thinker must ask, what significant information is disregarded? (p. 153) For example , in Penn-Mart’s scenario, the potential long lasting negative effects with the Get Very well program happen to be omitted. Could the program include negative implications?

The recommendations state that personnel who usually do not comply with the terms of “Get Well should be presented the possibility of paying a fine, weak future health-related benefits, resigning, or getting fired. Yet , the memorandum does not treat what the outcomes might be of the majority of workers refusing Get Well would be to Penn-Mart. If the company selects to fire those employees, they may lose a large number of workers, causing the whole business to go through. The final issue to ask in the critical thinking model is usually, what sensible conclusions happen to be possible? (p. 163) Being a critical thinker, the objective is always to determine and accept one of the most reasonable conclusion(s) to an argument that most strongly adheres to personal value preferences. There are frequently alternate conclusions or multiple conclusions that are feasible given the reasoning of your argument.

For instance , one realization to the Penn-Mart situation would be that the Get Very well program is a good solution to rising healthcare costs. Another conclusion may be there is another software that may be a better fit for Penn-Mart. After asking and evaluatingall 10 of the crucial questions to inquire, I believe which i have determined the most fair conclusion. To determine the best bottom line, it would be essential to obtain logic about the ambiguous conditions before analyzing the argument’s strength. With out that information it is not conceivable to make a organization opinion about the strength of reasoning. Before the clarification can be provided, it is my opinion that the recommendations of the specialist company ought not to be accepted. There are too many uncertain terms and fallacies employed to determine the fact that argument is definitely strong enough for acceptance.

Methods

Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2010). Asking the ideal questions: A guide to critical considering (10th education. ). Higher Saddle Lake, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

1

Tweet