Assignment: Individual Paper (15%)Scroll down to

Assignment: Individual Paper (15%)
Scroll down to see the Required business document
Analyze the business document below (scroll down), applying all 8 steps of the critical thinking framework model discussed in the US Army
Management Staff College AMSC Critical Thinking report (citing Dr. Richard Paul model) at
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/critical/roy.htm. Post this assignment in the assignment folder by the end of week 2.

You are using the 8 step method disseminated by Roy Eichhorn, Strategic Systems Department, Army Management Staff College, in the
report entitled, DEVELOPING THINKING SKILLS: CRITICAL THINKING AT THE ARMY MANAGEMENT STAFF COLLEGE in section
COMPONENTS OF CRITICAL THINKING AT AMSC.

From the ASMC report: "
THE AMSC PHILOSOPHY ON CRITICAL THINKING [...] We are often asked why we go to the effort of trying to teach critical thinking;
people already know how to think. The first answer to this question is that yes, we all think, but do we do it well and are we able to evaluate the
quality of our thinking? [...] Dr. Paul responded to this question with the statement that reflects our philosophy: "We are always thinking, the
question is, are we in charge of our thinking, or is our thinking in charge of us?"
The following is one of Dr. Paul’s definitions of critical thinking that summarizes our approach:
"Critical thinking is the ability to think about one’s thinking in such a way as:
1. to recognize its strengths and weaknesses and, as a result,
2. to recast the thinking in improved form.
Such thinking about one’s thinking involves the ability to identify the basic elements of thought (purpose, question, information, assumption,
interpretation, concepts, implications, point of view) and assess those elements using universal intellectual criteria and standards (clarity,
accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, and logicalness)."
In a short paper (7­8 double­spaced pages) apply all of the steps of the critical thinking model to assess the arguments made in the memo.
Include all of the steps. Leaving out discussion of steps will adversely affect your grade. You must include all 8 of the AMSC steps. As the
final 9th step in the paper, use the content on fallacies in Almossawi, Ali (2013). An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments ­
https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=allpages to identify any fallacies in the memo. Although not necessary for a passing grade,
answers to some of the questions may be enhanced by doing additional research.
Remember that your task here is to evaluate the author's argument as objectively as possible, not to give your own opinions on the
issue. Be sure to use the analytical points as set out in the critical thinking report, not your own thoughts on the issue.
The citations and the reference list in the paper should be formatted in accordance with the APA guidelines.
This paper is due by 11:59 PM the last day of Week 2.
Objective 2: Use a critical thinking framework to evaluate alternative courses of actions and reach sound decisions in workplace situations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2/7/2017 Required Business Document Memo for Analysis ­ DMBA 610 9040 Ethical Leadership in Organizations & Society (2172)

https://learn.umuc.edu/d2l/le/content/202553/viewContent/8953735/View 2/4
SAG­AFTRA Nevada Local

Memo
To: Mr. Kanye Kardashian­Fuentes (President, SAG­AFTRA Nevada Local)
From: Ms. RuPaul Fabowlus (Director of Human Resources, SAG­AFTRA Nevada Local)
CC: None (Confidential)
Date: January 22nd, 2017
Re: Al Jazeera America (AJAM) termination of union member employment contract (allegedly due to defamation by prior
employer, FOX News).
This is in response to your request for our union HR office to evaluate the legal representation notification letter sent to you by
the attorney for our union member, “Lil’ Lady RaRa” (legal name, Eugenia Glover). The letter indicated that she intends to file
lawsuits against FOX News and AJAM. You wanted to know if the union should publicly support the union member in
publicizing their legal case(s).
1.0 Background
“Lil’ Lady RaRa” (hereinafter referred to by her legal name, Ms. Eugenia Glover) has been an inconsistent dues paying member
of our union since 2004. She is a DJ, voiceover artist, mime, program host and former news editor (self described on her website
as “the Hottest Host in the Galaxy”). Ms. Glover worked at FOX News from 1999 – 2005. She was working as a news editor on
the FOX News show, “The O'Reilly Factor hosted by Bill O’Reilly” in May of 2005. On the show on the evening of May 10,
2005, there was a segment of an interview with guest, Courtney Anderson.
Courtney Anderson Enterprises LLC

The interview included a discussion of laws regarding child abuse laws in Texas and the newspaper, the Houston Chronicle. The
host, Bill O’Reilly, made comments on the air that resulted in the Houston Chronicle newspaper writing and publishing an
Editorial Journal on May 12, 2005 entitled, “Editorial Journal: The No Facts Zone.”

2/7/2017 Required Business Document Memo for Analysis ­ DMBA 610 9040 Ethical Leadership in Organizations & Society (2172)

https://learn.umuc.edu/d2l/le/content/202553/viewContent/8953735/View 3/4
It stated in part,“O'Reilly claims his show is free of spin. Spin is when someone casts the facts in such a light as to reinforce
his argument and weaken his opponent's. What O'Reilly did was to disregard the facts altogether, even going so far as to
attribute to the Chronicle words and views it did not print and does not espouse. That's not spin; it's misrepresentation that
is unprofessional, unwarranted and injurious to the public debate about a serious and urgent issue: protecting children from
predators.” (Gibbons, 2005)
Six days after the show aired, on May 16
th
, 2005, our member, Ms. Glover, was terminated from her job as news editor at “The
O'Reilly Factor”. Although she subsequently applied at over 400 media outlets around the world, she was not hired at any
television channels. After Ms. Glover provided her FOX News employment for reference and background checks, she was
always told that she was not selected for the position. Ms. Glover worked as an independent DJ, mime and substitute teacher
during this ten year time period (from May 16, 2005 ­ December 1, 2015). On December 1, 2015, AJAM offered her a news host
position.
As you know, our union, SAG­AFTRA, fiercely represents our members who are, “the faces and voices that entertain and inform
America and the world.” (SAG) Ms. Glover was hired by AJAM on December 1, 2015 prior to her background check being
completed. On December 16, 2015, AJAM called her in the Human Resources office and told her that she was being placed on
suspension pending an assessment of her prior work history. She was fired on December 20
th
, 2015 when she received a text
message from her supervisor at AJAM that stated, “You are done here. Bye! LOL!” On January 13th, 2016 it was reported in the
Chicago Tribune (via Paul Farhi with The Washington Post) that AJAM told its staff that it would shut down operations at the
end of April 2016 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct­al­jazeera­america­shutting­down­20160113­story.html).
Ms. Glover hired an attorney and is moving forward to take legal action against FOX News for interfering with her ability to
work and for AJAM for wrongful termination. She is planning to appear with her attorney on national news media outlets
(including “Good Morning America”, “The View” and “Entertainment Tonight”) to publicize her perspective on these events.
She posted on Twitter on December 1st, 2016, “#NEWSLIES ­ U Will NO the TRUTH SOON...” Her attorney has stated that as
her union representation, we are “either with her or against her.” The attorney notification letter to our union office stated that we
are “bullies” and “the dumbest union leaders in the universe” and have “wholly failed to adhere to the purported Mission
Statement by abandoning a loyal member and one of the greatest talents of the millennia.”
As you are fully aware, our Mission Statement includes the following,
“SAG­AFTRA is committed to organizing all work done under our jurisdictions; negotiating the best wages, working
conditions, and health and pension benefits; preserving and expanding members’ work opportunities; vigorously
enforcing our contracts; and protecting members against unauthorized use of their work.
A proud member of the AFL­CIO, SAG­AFTRA partners with our fellow unions in the U.S. and internationally to seek
the strongest protections for media artists throughout the world. We work with governments at the international,
federal, state, and local levels to expand protections for American media professionals both at home and abroad.”
(http://www.sagaftra.org/content/about­us)
2.0 Discussion
This attorney notification is an assault on our union. It is anti­American. Foreign artists and everyone in these United States and
beyond knows we are the most powerful labor union for media artists. Ms. Glover and her greedy lawyer want us to put our good
name and reputation on the line to support a member who could not get a job for over ten years. If we are publicly embarrassed
by Ms. Glover and her attorney on national television, our more famous and successful members (Justin Bieber, Paris Hilton,
Meryl Streep, Charlie Rose, Honey Boo­Boo, etc.) will not vote for you in the upcoming union presidential election. Therefore,
if you rebut her lawyers’ proposal (for us to appear publicly with her in the media), you will win the admiration of all our
members. I had lunch the other day with a group of our members, and everyone was in agreement that if you opposed this, they
would vote for you (at least 73% of the voters). This will set the stage for your re­election next year at the end of your present
term.
Ms. Glover is a weak mime and we should only represent the best mimes in the world (http://www.mime.info/). Also, it was an
embarrassment to Mr. O’Reilly at FOX News when the show on May 10, 2005 aired.
The Houston Chronicle editorial stated, “The 19th century American writer and philosopher Ralph Waldo
Emerson once said of a man, "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Were he alive
today, Emerson might be thinking of television host Bill O'Reilly.” (Gibbons, 2005)
The editorial made the show host look foolish (I attached a clip of the show for you to see for yourself what really happened).
Everyone knows that Mr. O’Reilly is one of the smartest people in the entire country which is why he was given a primetime
cable news television show. My brother­in­law says that he is a genius and supreme leader of their genius group, MENSA.

2/7/2017 Required Business Document Memo for Analysis ­ DMBA 610 9040 Ethical Leadership in Organizations & Society (2172)

https://learn.umuc.edu/d2l/le/content/202553/viewContent/8953735/View 4/4
After the May 10, 2005 show, even leading global media experts like “The Rude Pundit” posted on the web,
“He claimed the paper said the law was too harsh, he said the paper's "taken a lot of shots at me" so it must be liberal,
and then, while "interviewing" Austin criminal defense attorney Courtney Anderson, he took out the bunny and starting
gulping down eyeballs like olives: "Counseling, community service projects, all of this touchy feely BS the Houston
Chronicle's putting out there, because whoa, far be it from society to have zero tolerance against child molesters. We
can't have that. This is the kind of pinhead stuf that's hurt this country." When Anderson dared to imply that what
O'Reilly was saying was not, actually, in the article, O'Reilly bit the head of the bunny: "You're misreading this article.
This article, number one, criticizes Florida for passing the law, says they don't like the law. The law is too harsh, all
right, number one."” (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/05/why­bill­oreilly­ought­to­be­sodomized.html)
Ms. Glover is an unpopular DJ and an even worse news editor. If we were to allow such a non­famous and unaccomplished
individual to sully our union name by associating with her, our Nevada Local office could cease to exist. We represent the best of
the best in the world and are the #1 ranked most phenomenally powerful labor union in American history
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAG­AFTRA) with 92.7% approval. We have to maintain our reputation!
We must oppose Ms. Glover and her attorney now, or we do a disservice to our members and will regret it later. I speak for truth
and common sense. We have to be strong and show no weakness to this delusional member. I am currently checking to see if her
union dues are current right now because everyone knows that people who are not famous and successful do not pay their bills.
Finally, lawsuits and the greedy ambulance chasing lawyers who file them, are ruining this country. According to a recent article
posted in a prestigious Wall Street newspaper, the additional legal costs of doing business adds 21.3% of hidden costs to the
price of each product or service transaction in this country. If we were to support Ms. Glover and she publicly insults FOX
News, their hosts or AJAM, we will have to deal with potential legal action from their lawyers which could bankrupt us. Ms.
Glover has already destroyed AJAM as they are now out of business. Is it a coincidence that shortly after she worked there the
company (AJAM) announced they were closing? Do we want to be next to fail? Ms. Glover is proven to be toxic to the entire
entertainment industry.
3.0 Conclusion and Recommendation
SAG­AFTRA Nevada Local should not support Ms. Glover. Our members will lose their pride in being part of our union and
potentially their jobs if we appear in the media attacking powerful organizations like FOX News and AJAM. If Ms. Glover
wants to be successful, she should abandon this wasteful legal action and instead practice her mime, DJ and hosting skills. She
needs to leave our prestigious union alone.
Just say the word and I will draft a reply to this effect for your signature.

Gibbons, James H. "Editorial Journal: The No Facts Zone." Houston Chronicle. Houston Chronicle, 12 May 2005. Web. 10 Sept.
2013.<http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial­Journal­The­No­Facts­Zone­1935986.php>.



honeyd


16-09-20 | 20:51:18

1. Introduction Critical thinking is the correct way of forming judgments. Critical thinking is defined to as the analysis of information, facts and consequences and evaluating them in order to come up with judgments that would yield the desired results and least problems. People used to argue that as long as a person thinks then they are able to come up with better judgments. Bad judgments were associated with people who act on things without thinking. This has however been proved to be untrue. Dr. Richard Paul in giving the reason of thinking critically compared critical thinking to a person who is in control of their thinking while those who think but fail to do it critically being people who are controlled by their thinking (Nieto & Saiz, 2010). This is the reason why fallacies would hamper a well thought out process and in the end results to poor judgment. Thinking critically involves eight elements which must be used in order to arrive at the best judgment. The eight elements in no particular order include; having a goal or a purpose, the problem to be solved, information on the reasoning, inference, concepts to be used in reasoning, assumptions, the consequences and lastly the point of view. It is through these eight elements of reasoning that the judgment is made upon. This paper is an analysis of a memo to the president of SAG-AFTRA on refusal of representation of Ms. Eugenia Glove on whether the reason involved used or was impacted by the eight elements of critical thinking as it is in the critical thinking at the army management staff college. The thinking involved will also be checked for any fallacies that impacted the judgment as described in the memo. 5 CRITICAL THINKING 2. Critical thinking in the memo The director of human resource of SAG-AFTRA Ms. RuPaul Fabowlus had written a memo to the president on the issue of one of the employees that their organization represents, Ms. Eugenia Glove. Ms. Eugenia Glove did want the union to help her by first offering her with support in the law suit and to do it publicly. The verdict from the director of human resource was that the union should not heed to her requests. This was after highlighting much of her thinking in the memo that made her decide how she arrived at that judgment. Her thinking subjected to different elements of critical thinking showed to have some elements but not others ("Editorial Journal: The No Facts Zone", 2017). 2.1 Purpose Reasoning should have some goals or purpose to which should be achieved. Reasoning would lack a sense direction if it lacks an end goal. For this thus critical thinking should include a purpose for which the thinking should aim to fulfill (Eichhorn, 2017). In the memo, the director of human resource starts by saying the purpose in the first paragraph of the memo. From the problem to which should be solved through thinking, the purpose of the thinking is to be found. The purpose of the reasoning usually gives the thinking process the concept that it should follow and the assumptions that it should be made. The memos purpose has it that the purpose of the thinking to be involved is whether to accept or reject Ms. Eugenia Glove request. This is particularly the goal as to which the whole process of thinking should arrive at. 2.2 problem to be solved 6 CRITICAL THINKING The problem to be solved which may also be referred to as the question in issue is the question formulated whose answer is the goal of the thinking process. In critical thinking, having a good question at issue would result in a good thinking process. If the question is formulated incorrectly then chances are there that the result of the thinking would not give the correct judgments. The director of human resource was able to formulate the question to be answered. The question at issue should include the people to be involved, what is required of them and what is to be solved. In the memo, the question is also in the first paragraph. The question used in the thinking process was that one asked by the president to the director of human resource. The memo thus was written to a reply of a question that was asked by the president whether the union should support Ms. Eugenia Glove or not. Thus the problem to be solved was whether the union should publicly support her in publicizing her legal case. All these and other information was able to inform the 2.3 Information Facts and data is the backbone of any thought after decision (Possin, 2010). Critical thinking involves analyzing all the information and facts about the given topic. This enables the person to make an informed judgment on the question. Failure to use information to make information would result into making a judgment based on other things rather than facts such as emotional judgment, religious judgment, etc. All those are fallacies that prevent correct judgment (Eichhorn, 2017). The director of human resource in this case was able to collect information that was necessary to ensure they are able to make an informed decision. The first information they collected was in the background of the matter, here they were able to find out that Ms. Glove previously worked for Fox news where she was fired and had to stay for ten years without 7 CRITICAL THINKING employment, she was briefly hired by Aljazeera America where she was also fired, among other information concerning Ms. Glove and the case. The director of human resource was able to also find facts on the consequences of taking each decision available. It is from this decisions that they were able to find that most of the employees they represent and especially the influential ones would not vote for the current leadership if they choose to side with Ms. Glove, they were also able to find out there are possible counter law suits to the firm if they choose to support Ms. Glove in her law suit. Sometimes, the information collected may be biased and thus result in the facts to be biased towards a certain judgment and a judgment to be selected which was not appropriate. Interpretation of the facts also would have resulted into a biased judgment. This is even seen when the director of human resource uses other wrong doings of Ms. Glove that would not be related to the case to cast a bad picture of Ms. Glove such include labeling of Ms. Glove as an unpopular dj and a worse editor. Such are used to paint Ms. Glove in a bad picture to the president and thus influence the decision mainly on her rather than the case. 2.4 Inference Use of inference is also applied in critical thinking. This is the process of coming up with conclusions based on the analyzed facts. Just like in science experiments, critical thinking also involves coming up with judgments based on the information provided (Eichhorn, 2017). In the memo, the director of human resource uses inference in making the decisions that are to be made. We see her writing that the union should abandon the thought of supporting her law suits because it will be doing disservice to her members when corporations such as Fox news and Aljazeera start fighting them in law suits. They should also not support her because they will not 8 CRITICAL THINKING be supported in the forthcoming union elections, etc. All these are inferences. Inferences are important as they hold the reasons why certain judgments are made. Inferences ought to be as correct as possible to the conclusion to be made since a wrong inference might result into a wrong judgment. 2.5 Conceptual dimension of reasoning Critical thinking involves certain ideas, principles, rules, theories etc. in order to come up with the best decision to be made all those must also be used in the reasoning (Eichhorn, 2017). However, such are not to be used haphazardly since every decision would have its separate set of theories and principles. For instance in a court of law a person may be regarded as guilt if some of its past actions can be used to show they are capable of committing the same mistake. Such concepts are also useful in applying while making decision. However, if they are used without proper care they could be the reason for bias and wrong judgment. In the memo, the director of human resource states some of the reason why they should not support Ms. Glove is because she is among the unsuccessful employees who have a tendency to not even pay the union bills. She is also regarded as a person who wants to gain fame through the process and the reason for most of his former employers’ fall i.e. she resulted in Bill O’Reilly being painted a bad picture. 2.6 Assumptions Assumptions in critical thinking give a person wider facts to collect and consequences that are possible. It is through making assumptions that the individual is able to become certain of the judgments they make (Eichhorn, 2017). Sometimes in thinking, the judgments to be made will also be impacted by future actions. If the person cannot be able to know the actions that would 9 CRITICAL THINKING impact their judgments and make their assumptions based on them and other things then they may not be able to make a good decision from their thinking. The director of human resource makes one assumption concerning Ms. Glove that may impact the judgment they make. She says that based on Ms. Glove behavior she may end up insulting Fox news and Aljazeera which may result in counter suits to the organization. This is an assumption that is made in order to influence the judgment process. 2.7 consequences Consequences are the result of a particular decision being taken. Consequences usually play a huge part in how the judgment of a particular problem is done in critical thinking (Eichhorn, 2017). This is because; consequences would either label a decision as either poor or good. If the consequences are not bad then the decision is good. If the consequences are bad then the decision is poor. The director of human resource addresses the consequences to be expected in the memo. She says by supporting the employee, the current leaders will not be elected in the forthcoming union election. She also says the union will lose reputation since the union usually represents the best of the best yet Ms. Glove is not one of them. She even states that the union may be no more by supporting the employee. She also states that in case Ms. Glove is able to insult the two former employers then there will be counter law suits to the union from the two news power houses. She however does not give consequences that may be as a result of not supporting her. 2.8 point of view 10 CRITICAL THINKING Point of view shows how one looks at the problem. They could be neutral; they could be vouching for one side, etc. point of view may be the biggest impediment to critical thinking as it may result in one person failing to collect enough facts or to collect more than enough for a given topic (Eichhorn, 2017). It leads to biasness and contradictions in assessing the information provided. In the memo, it is hard to see the point of view of the writer, however the way she argues the facts one could assume she had already seen Ms. Glove as not good for the union even before she started collecting information. 3. Fallacies of critical thinking The director of human resource was also prone to fallacy of reasoning. One was fallacy of appeal to motive, she says that Ms. Glove is looking for publicity thus she should not be represented ("Editorial Journal: The No Facts Zone", 2017). There is no proof that she is looking for publicity but the director is using it in order to argue her case. Exaggeration is also used in reasoning; the director says that she is responsible for the sudden closure of Aljazeera. This is not true. She was only employed for a short period and would thus not be the reason why a big company such as that be able to close its operation (Reilly, n.d.). 4. Conclusion The director of human resource was able to use all the elements of critical thinking in her reasoning and thus came up with the best judgment for that particular problem. It is true, the union was not supposed to support Ms. Glove due to part of all the things that the director of human resource argued. While the decision and process was done well, the thinking also 11 CRITICAL THINKING involved was able to have fallacies that would have hurt the decision had it had not many arguments to use for the decision. Such fallacies include appeal to motive, exaggeration among others. 12 CRITICAL THINKING References Ayayo, K. (2014). Critical Thinking with Sally Student. Teaching Theology & Religion, 17(3), 221-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/teth.12204 de Bie, H., Wilhelm, P., & van der Meij, H. (2015). The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment: Toward a Dutch appraisal of critical thinking. Thinking Skills And Creativity, 17, 33-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.04.001 Editorial Journal: The No Facts Zone. (2017). Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 8 February 2017, from http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Journal-The-No-Facts-Zone- 1935986.phphttp://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Journal-The-No-Facts- Zone-1935986.php Eichhorn, R. (2017). CRITICAL THINKING. Au.af.mil. Retrieved 8 February 2017, from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/critical/roy.htm Nieto, A. & Saiz, C. (2010). Critical Thinking. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across The Disciplines, 25(2), 19-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews20102524 Possin, K. (2010). The Power of Critical Thinking. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across The Disciplines, 25(3), 31-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews201025321 Reilly, J. Bad judgment (1st ed.).

Login to answer this question!