CRITICAL THINKING AND WRITING
CONTENTS
Preface
1. Writing Basic Arguments
Exercise W-1
2. Writing Longer Argumentative Passages
Exercise W-2
PREFACE
Logic and critical reasoning are concerned with arguments, and one of the better ways of
learning about arguments is through practice in writing them. The present booklet provides such
practice through exercises that require at least 9000 words of student writing. The booklet is
intended to fulfill the writing component of certain writing-intensive logic and critical reasoning
courses, but independently, it serves as a general reinforcement of the principles presented in
Chapter 1 of A Concise Introduction to Logic.
One of the chief difficulties that students face in their writing assignments is a sheer lack of
experiential (or conceptual) material to put into words. The assigned topic is often abstract, and
the student has no deposit of experience from which to draw and no stimulus to the imagination
to produce new experience vicariously. The present booklet responds to this need by supplying
material that engages the student's existing experience and stimulates the imagination so as to
render the construction of even lengthy arguments a fairly easy task.
The booklet is divided into two sections. The first, which deals with the writing of relatively
short arguments, provides descriptions of ordinary human situations that are calculated to get the
student thinking. Lists of facts are given for premise material, and the student is challenged to
distinguish relevant facts from irrelevant ones. Finally, the student is shown how to supplement
the list of relevant facts with additional facts drawn from his or her own experience and how to
convert this material into an argument that supports a designated conclusion.
The second section provides instruction on writing longer argumentative passages. As a partial
source of subject matter and a stimulus to the imagination, brief literary selections are given on
topics of general interest. These selections are intended to serve as "springboards" for argument
construction. Instruction is given on how to extract premise material from the given selection,
supplement it with new material from one's own experience, evaluate it for truth and
reasonableness, and use it to support a designated conclusion.
Before beginning this booklet, the student should have finished Chapter 1 of A Concise
Introduction to Logic. Additional practice in constructing long arguments is given in Exercise
9.1 of that book.
1. Writing Basic Arguments
An argument is a form of expression that is intended to prove something. The statement that is
supposed to be proved is the conclusion, and the statements that accomplish the proving are the
premises. These topics are covered in the first chapter of A Concise Introduction to Logic, and we will use
many of the principles developed there in writing arguments.
The writing exercises that follow this section give practice in writing basic arguments. They consist of a
brief description of a situation involving human interaction, a conclusion that your argument must support,
and a set of facts that pertain to this situation. Only certain of these facts are relevant to the designated
conclusion. In working the exercises, you should follow this four-step procedure:
1. Read the exercise and the accompanying facts.
2. Eliminate the facts that are irrelevant to the designated conclusion.
3. Supplement the remaining facts with additional facts drawn from your own experience and
inferences that these facts imply.
4. Using these facts as premises, write an argument that supports the designated conclusion.
In regard to step three, the facts that you add from your own experience must not contradict the given
facts, but rather they should fill them out, thus allowing the construction of a coherent argument. The
inferences will serve as subordinate conclusions in support of the final, designated conclusion. Here is a
sample exercise:
Your friend Tom owns a car that causes a great deal of pollution. While running, it emits huge
clouds of blue smoke. Concerned about the environment, you try to convince Tom to get the car
repaired; but first, you put your argument down on paper. Some facts are as follows:
a. Exhaust smoke causes acid rain.
b. There is a law requiring that cars be tested for emissions.
c. Tom's car was tuned up only eight months ago.
d. Exhaust smoke causes smog.
e. You have ridden in Tom's car many times.
f. Tom cheated on the emissions test.
g. Tom purchased his car through an ad in the classified section of the newspaper.
h. Tom's fiance recently broke off their engagement.
i. Smog weakens the immune system of all who breathe it.
j. Tom's car was manufactured in Detroit.
k. Tom recently failed his calculus course.
We begin by eliminating the irrelevant facts. In doing so, however, we note two important points about
relevance. The first point is that every fact is relevant to some conclusion or other, so before we eliminate
anything we must have a clear idea of what our conclusion will be. The instructions for the exercise tell us
that our argument should persuade Tom to have his car repaired. Thus, we adopt as our conclusion,
"Tom should get his car repaired immediately."
The second point about relevance is that facts that may not appear relevant initially may become
relevant when additional, interconnecting facts are added to the list. For example, the first fact on the list,
that exhaust smoke causes acid rain, might not seem to be relevant if we know nothing about the harm
caused by acid rain. But if we recall that acid rain kills trees, and that trees produce life-sustaining
oxygen, then this fact becomes clearly relevant.
Keeping these points in mind, we can probably eliminate c, e, g, h, j, and k. The fact that Tom's car was
tuned up only eight months ago has little to do with the fact that his car is smoking now and should
therefore be repaired. Also, the fact that you have ridden in his car, the details of its purchase, the place
of its manufacture, Tom's plans for marriage, and the fact that Tom failed calculus are largely irrelevant to
this conclusion. Some of these facts might be made relevant through the addition of certain inferences,
but even then they would probably add little support to the conclusion. For example, the fact that Tom's
fiance recently broke off their engagement might be made relevant through the inference that because his
marriage plans are over, Tom may now have the needed time to make car repairs. But even with this
inference, the fact about Tom's engagement is rather peripheral, and its inclusion may dilute the force of
the other facts.
Having eliminated facts c, e, g, h, j, k, we are left with the following:
a. Exhaust smoke causes acid rain.
b. There is a law requiring that cars be tested for emissions.
d. Exhaust smoke causes smog.
f. Tom cheated on the emissions test.
i. Smog weakens the immune system of all who breathe it.
Turning now to step three, we will supplement these facts with additional facts and inferences drawn
from our own experience. In doing this, we fulfill a dual objective. First, we supply the intermediate facts
and inferences that make the given facts relevant to the conclusion, and second, we add any facts we
may be aware of that reinforce the given facts. In connection with the fact that exhaust smoke causes
acid rain, we have already noted that acid rain kills trees, and trees produce life-sustaining oxygen. In
connection with the fact that exhaust smoke causes smog, we might add the fact that smog may pose a
life-threatening condition to people with emphysema and certain other diseases. Because of this fact,
Tom might be jeopardizing the lives of hundreds of people
Putting facts b and f together, we can draw the inference that Tom has broken the law, and if the police
discover what he has done, they may impose a hefty fine or even arrest him. In connection with the fact
that smog weakens the immune system of people who breathe it, we might draw the inference that smog
therefore makes people vulnerable to disease and allergies. Finally, we might be aware of the fact that
blue smoke means that a car is burning oil, and from this we might draw the inference that if Tom would
get his car repaired, he would avoid the expense of having to buy extra motor oil.
Adding these facts and inferences to the given facts, we can now write the following argument:
Tom should get his car repaired immediately, and he should do so for the following reasons.
Tom's car emits a lot of smoke, and this smoke contributes to acid rain and smog. Acid rain kills
trees, which produce life-sustaining oxygen, and smog weakens the immune system of everyone
who breathes it, making them more vulnerable to disease and allergies. Furthermore, smog can
create a life threatening condition for people with emphysema and certain other diseases. Without
realizing it, Tom may be jeopardizing the lives of hundreds of people. In addition, because the
smoke coming from Tom's car is blue, we know that the car is burning oil, and oil costs money.
Tom could avoid this expense if he would have his car repaired. Lastly, the smoke coming from
Tom's car is surely a red flag for the police, and if they should pull him over and discover that he
cheated on the legally mandated emissions test, they will impose a hefty fine, or possibly even
arrest him. Surely Tom wants to avoid that.
This argument is 173 words in length, and it was produced fairly effortlessly by following the method
described. As you read it, note that it consists of a number of small arguments all of whose conclusions
support the main conclusion, which is stated first.
In constructing arguments of this kind, there is one final point to keep in mind. This is the requirement
that premises and conclusions be phrased as statements. The main conclusion, "Tom should get his car
repaired immediately" is a statement, and so it conforms to this requirement. If it were phrased, "Tom,
why don't you get your car repaired?" it would be phrased as a question, and questions are not
statements. Analogously, if the conclusion were phrased, "Tom, I suggest that you get your car repaired
immediately," it would be phrased as a proposal, and proposals are not statements. Similar remarks apply
to the premises and conclusions of the component arguments.
EXERCISE W-1
Use the four-step method described in this section to construct an argument at least 100 words in
length for each of the following situations.
1. You go to the beach with your friend, and after applying a generous dose of sun block, you
offer some to her. She declines. In response, you formulate an argument proving that people on
the beach should normally use sun block. Some facts are as follows:
a. The sun's rays are generated deep inside the sun by thermonuclear reactions.
b. Melanoma, a form of skin cancer, is often incurable.
c. Sand and water reflect the sun's rays.
d. The ozone layer is becoming depleted.
e. The sun's rays age skin, causing premature wrinkles.
f. Water often washes off sun block and sun screen.
g. Some rays bounce around inside the sun for as long as 3000 years before reaching the
surface.
h. Ozone blocks ultraviolet rays.
i The sun rotates once every 24 days.
j. There is no such thing as a healthy suntan.
k. The sun's rays cause skin cancer.
l. The sun sustains all life on this planet.
2. You visit a restaurant and ask to be seated in the nonsmoking section. While there, you are
bothered by smoke that has drifted over from the smoking section. You decide to write a letter to
the restaurant manager arguing that the no smoking section should be more free of smoke. Some
facts are as follows:
a. The Surgeon General has issued a warning about the dangers of second-hand smoke.
b. The restaurant's owner was born in France.
c. The restaurant is located in the northwest section of town.
d. Children are especially vulnerable to second-hand smoke.
e. The restaurant seats 150 patrons, two-thirds of whom are in the nonsmoking section
f. The restaurant specializes in fresh fish.
g. The restaurant plays light classical music over its sound system.
h. The restaurant was constructed in 1978.
i. A scientific study has indicated that 3000 people in this country die each year from
second-hand smoke.
j. The restaurant's patrons are mainly middle class families.
k. Fish contains oils that are vital for human health.
l. Los Angeles has outlawed smoking in all restaurants.
3. You buy a pair of fashion jeans on sale at the local Pants-R-Us store. After returning home,
you find that the zipper in the front is broken, and you cannot wear the jeans (without undue
exposure). You take them back to the store and tell the clerk that he should allow you to switch
them for a different pair. You support this claim with an argument. Some facts are as follows:
a. You have returned sale items on other occasions.
b. All of the jeans you purchased there in the past had good zippers.
c. All your friends wear Pants-R-Us jeans.
d. There is a sign at the checkout stand that reads "No Returns on Sale Items."
e. The jeans you purchased were manufactured in the U.S.A.
f. The zipper on the jeans you bought is made of brass.
g. The store was mobbed with people during the sale.
h. The jeans you bought have a design stitched on the back pockets.
i. The clerk who rang up your purchase spoke with an Austrian accent.
j. Unhappy customers rarely return to make new purchases.
k. The Pants-R-Us store is located in a large shopping center.
l. The Pants-R-Us store carries several different brands of jeans.
4. You notice that your neighbor across the street, Mr. Harkins, loads up his garbage cans with
newspapers, even though the city has implemented a recycling program for newspaper. You
decide to write him an anonymous letter arguing that he should recycle his old newspapers.
Some facts are as follows:
a. Newspaper is made from wood pulp.
b. The city also has a program for recycling glass and plastic.
c. Landfills for garbage are filling up.
d. Mr. Harkins especially loves the business section of the paper.
e. The city imposes fines for dumping recyclable material into garbage cans.
f. People who develop a recycle mentality are more environmentally sensitive overall.
g. The local paper has a conservative editorial policy.
h. Mr. Harkins subscribes to three daily papers.
i. Trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen.
j. Two of the papers Mr. Harkins subscribes to use biodegradable ink.
k. Mr. Harkins is married and has two kids.
l. Our national forests are currently being overcut.
5. You live in a dorm while attending college, and you have a meal contract with the campus
food service. The food service cooks many of its main courses in lard. After a few weeks of
eating this food, you find that you have gained 5 pounds, and you do not like it one bit. You
decide to write a letter to the food service arguing that it change its policy. Some facts are as
follows:
a. The contract between you and the food service states that healthy foods will be served.
b. The cafeteria service area is quite large.
c. The headquarters of the food service are in Chicago.
d. The cafeteria is closed during school vacations.
e. The contract between the food service and the college is up for renewal at the end of
the current year.
f. The food service employs 16 people as cooks, servers, and clean-up helpers.
g. The Surgeon General has issued a report stating that fatty foods are unhealthy.
h. The cream pies are always tempting.
i. Lard is high in cholesterol and saturated fat.
j. The cafeteria serves three meals per day Monday through Friday, but only two meals
per day on weekends.
k. Butter is higher in cholesterol and saturated fat than lard.
l. The manager of the food service is a graduate of Cornell.
6. While walking in the park, you notice a man strolling toward you with a Saint Bernard.
Suddenly the dog breaks its leash, runs through the mud, and jumps up on you, getting mud all
over your new shirt or dress. The dog's owner says "Sorry," and begins to walk off. Immediately
you give him an argument that he ought to pay to have your shirt or dress cleaned. Some facts
are as follows:
a. The dog is five years old.
b. The dog is a purebred.
c. There are signs in the park stating that dogs must be kept on a leash.
d. The owner brought the dog with him when he moved there from Albuquerque.
e. The dog weighs 175 pounds.
f. The owner admits that his dog broke an identical leash two weeks earlier.
g. You have walked in that park before, and nothing like that ever happened.
h. You like cats better than dogs.
i. The incident happened about two o'clock in the afternoon.
j. A city ordinance states that dogs must be kept on a leash while in city parks.
k. The dog likes children.
l. You tried to avoid the dog when you saw it coming toward you.
7. You sign a one-year lease for an apartment and move in. On the first rainy day you discover
that the roof leaks. To make matters worse, you had placed your new stereo under one of the
leaks, and it costs you $245 to have it repaired. You write a letter to the owner of the apartment
arguing that she fix the leaks and refund your $245. Some facts are as follows:
a. The owner had the roof repaired five years ago.
b. The stereo cost $2500.
c. The last apartment you rented had no leaks in the roof, although it did have a leaky
faucet.
d. A local ordinance requires landlords to keep properties in good repair.
e. The owner owns four other apartment buildings.
f. It rains a lot in this city.
g. The owner was called before the housing commission last year to answer complaints
from other tenants.
h. Sometimes the hot water runs out in the middle of your shower.
i. The apartment building is located close to a branch post office.
j. There are ten units in the apartment building.
k. You have an extensive collection of jazz CDs.
l. The prior tenant notified the owner that this unit had a leaky roof.
8. You are cited for driving 70 miles per hour in a 55 mile-per-hour zone. You request to make
an appearance in traffic court, and you construct an argument to present to the judge. Some facts
are as follows:
a. You drive a 1989 Volkswagen.
b. The speed limit decreases from 65 to 55 shortly before the spot where you were
stopped.
c. Your deceased aunt was a highly respected judge in the community.
d. The officer who stopped you was nasty.
e. The officer's car had a broken headlight.
f. Others around you were going even faster than you were.
g. You have received two other speeding tickets in the past twelve months.
h. The highway patrol officers in your state are paid more than the officers in the
neighboring state.
i. The 55 mile-per-hour-sign is partly hidden by bushes.
j. You have traveled that stretch of highway hundreds of times.
k. The officer's speedometer had not been calibrated in the past twelve months.
l. After citing you for speeding, the officer said under his breath that people who drive
German cars are unpatriotic.
9. You have volunteered to work on a committee to elect Kristen Summers student body
president. You agree to present a very short speech to a student group arguing that Summers is
the best person for the job. Some facts are as follows:
a. Summers served on the student senate during the two prior years.
b. There have been reports of widespread cheating in the School of Business.
c. Summers is very articulate.
d. Summers is a blonde, but she was formerly a brunette.
e. Summers dates the captain of the football team.
f. You have known Summers for three years.
g. Summers opposes the death penalty.
h. Summers supports the adoption of a campus-wide honor code.
i. Summers comes from a wealthy family in upstate New York.
j. Summers directed a Thanksgiving food drive for destitute families.
k. Summers supports a reform proposal that would make the student senate more
responsive to the student body.
l. The students in general tend to be apathetic in regard to student government.
10. You happen to hear that your missing football trophy is sitting on a shelf in the home of a
certain Mr. Hinkle. You call on Hinkle to retrieve it, but finding him away, you force the screen
on the front door and let yourself in. You retrieve the trophy, but on the way out you are spotted
by police who accuse you of burglary. In your own defense, you present an argument to one of
the police officers. Some facts are as follows:
a. Hinkle's house was very neat and clean.
b. The trophy has your name on it.
c. On the same shelf, you noticed several different football trophies.
d. Hinkle earns $75,000 per year as a clothing sales rep.
e. The back door to the house was unlocked.
f. You have heard that Hinkle is congenitally weak and sickly.
g. Hinkle lives in a brick-faced bungalow.
h. You are currently on probation for low grades.
i. Your second cousin is a lieutenant on the police force.
j. Hinkle owns many pieces of expensive crystal and silver that are visible through the
glass doors of the buffet.
k. Your uncle recently died in a car crash.
l. The police officer is taller and heavier than you are.
2. Writing Longer Argumentative Passages
The arguments we will construct in this section are longer and of more general interest than those
in the previous section. The subject matter is provided by editorials that have been clipped from
newspapers. These editorials serve as a limited source of facts and as a stimulus to the
imagination for writing longer argumentative passages. In working the exercises that appear at
the end of this section you should follow this six-step approach:
1. Read the selection at least twice.
2. Underline the most important claims the author makes.
3. Make a list of these claims.
4. Mentally massage these claims, expanding upon them and drawing inferences from
them.
5. Evaluate the claims and inferences.
6. Write an argument supporting one of the conclusions posed prior to the selection.
The purpose of each editorial selection is to provide a springboard for argumentation. The
editorials themselves fall short of being sustained arguments leading to a single conclusion. All
of them contain arguments, but those arguments are mixed together with reports, explanations,
expository passages and other nonargumentative forms of expression. However, they do provide
sufficient information to get you started in writing a fairly long argumentative passage.
After reading the editorial selection and making a list of what you consider the most important
points, you must think about these points, adding to them from your own deposit of experience
and drawing implications from them. Here is where the task of critical reasoning begins. It ends
with the evaluation of these claims and inferences. If you agree with the various claims and
inferences, you can proceed to the sixth step and begin writing an argumentative passage that
supports one of the designated conclusions. But if you disagree, you must make a list of counter
claims and counter inferences that support one of the other designated conclusions.
Here is a sample exercise:
Read the following selection, and then write an argument that supports one of these conclusions:
(1) The conduct of modern business will improve if more high level jobs are given to
women.
(2) The conduct of modern business will not improve if more high level jobs are given to
women.
Perspective on the Work Force:
Why Should Women Be Like Men?
by George Tunick
While Census figures released last Friday indicate that the number of women in management
jobs rose 95% between 1980 and 1990, men still dominate. Most evidence shows that women are
still disproportionately in the lowest tiers of management and in the lowest-paying industries.
I first noticed that girls were different from boys when I was about 4 years old. No experiences
either in my personal life or in my business life have caused me to change my opinion.
Throughout my adult life, however, I have had to evaluate again and again these gender
differences and how they affect the way men and women relate to one another and to the
environment in which they work. Working almost exclusively with women has given me insight
I would never have gained in any other way.
Women are working at a decided disadvantage in the business world¾ still working in an
environment created by men to make things comfortable for men. To me, this means men often
understand the rules without having to be taught or even having to think about them. It is not so
easy for women. If I may fall back on typically male sports terminology, women have had to
learn both the game and the game plan at the same time.
Foremost in the different set of rules women seem to follow, at least in my own observation, is
that women in business tend to be more honest than men. A direct question to a woman often
results in a direct, frank response. This quality makes it more difficult for women to "yes" an
employer. It also makes women more trustworthy than the men who often can't, or won't, give a
straight answer to a question. Women are also more open than men about their feelings, their
ambitions, and everyday situations in the office. This makes them more vulnerable than men,
who tend to play the corporate game very close to the vest. Traditionally, women in business
have been more harshly judged than men. They have had to be better in a job than a man to get
ahead. In my own observation, women are often more thorough and more detail-oriented than
men are. However, while people with tenacious attention to detail are very competent in
particular positions, they often fail to develop a broad overview. The successful business
executive must see how each cog fits in the wheel and in which direction the wheel should be
turning. I think men sometimes have an easier time with this than women because men have
been taught to believe they would eventually become "big wheels." While many younger women
in the work force have had this advantage, the majority of women working today have not.
Another difference between working men and women is that men take more chances; men are
more willing to gamble. Men are trained to be competitive and enjoy a real dog-eat-dog battle.
Some women are, too; most aren't. Men also shoot from the hip more. Our male employers have
taught us that we can do this, and even be off the mark, without great penalty. Women are often
taught just the opposite¾ again, by male employers. Women seem to be, as a result, more
thoughtful, more cautious, more prudent. For example, I have interviewed more than a dozen
people for the job of advertising salesperson. Most of the candidates were women and, without
exception, they wanted a substantial salary and a small commission. The men I saw, also without
exception, wanted a substantial commission and a small salary. Women also seem more
comfortable in staff jobs than line jobs, perhaps because they know that the price they will have
to pay when they make a mistake is greater than the price men pay.
Of all the differences between men and women that I have noticed, one in particular stands out. I
have never heard any man talk about fulfillment in a career. When I began working with women,
I was quite surprised to hear the word used, and frequently. I think women have the right idea.
Fulfillment should be a part of what both women and men expect from their professional
experience. It seems to me a healthier, more sensible way to approach a career.
From listening to women, I have learned that they see traditional "male" business rules as not
very nice¾ even dishonest. I agree with them. As women continue to rise in the work force, they
will continue to positively influence and change the way business is conducted. That change will
be better for both women and men.
Following the six-step approach outlined earlier, we begin by reading the selection twice and
underlining the most important claims. Then we make a list of these claims:
Men and women operate according to different sets of rules.
Men know the rules of business without being taught.
Women have to be taught the rules of business.
Women tend to be more honest than men.
Women give more direct, frank answers to questions than men.
Women are less likely to "yes" an employer than men are.
Women are more trustworthy than men.
Women are more open about their feelings and ambitions than men.
Women are more vulnerable than men.
Women are more thorough and more detail-oriented than men.
Men are better in developing broad overviews than women.
Men are more willing to take chances and to gamble than women.
Men tend more often to shoot from the hip than women.
Men are more competitive than women.
Women are more thoughtful, cautious, and prudent than men.
Women are more concerned with finding fulfillment than men.
The fourth step is to mentally "massage" these claims. What do they amount to? What do they
entail? How do they have a bearing on the conduct of business? Is there anything we can add to
them? Well, if women are more honest than men, they are probably less interested in playing
games, and this would suggest greater efficiency and less time wasted on posturing and pointless
maneuvering. And if women tend to give more direct answers, their supervisors will be more
likely to get the straight story and therefore less likely to adopt misdirected or futile courses of
action. If women are more open about their feelings, they are probably less likely to grumble
under their breath about such things as work conditions, and this may lead to improved
conditions and greater efficiency.
However, if women are more vulnerable than men, they may lack the toughness needed for
business, and they may therefore be less effective in conducting business transactions. Also, if
they are less competitive than men, companies led by women may succumb in a market
dominated by male-led companies. However, if women can work effectively with men, their
vulnerability and diminished competitiveness may subside with time. Also, if these features
result from the need to adapt to a set of rules produced by men, the rules themselves may change
as women become more prominent in the world of business.
If women are more detail-oriented than men, their work will contain fewer "glitches," and as a
result, projects and programs developed by women should run more smoothly. However, if men
are better at developing broad overviews than women, women will be less effective than men in
long range planning. Also, if men are more willing to take chances than women, and if success in
business involves taking chances, then perhaps men should be given a free rein here. However,
shooting from the hip often produces stray shots, so assigning part of the risk-taking role to
women, who are more cautious and prudent, may save money in the end.
Finally, if women are more concerned about career fulfillment than men, they will probably
seek and achieve this goal to a greater extent than men. Employees who find fulfillment in their
work tend to be more stable and less interested in changing jobs than those who find no such
fulfillment. Also, women in a managerial capacity should be more concerned that those under
their supervision find such fulfillment. Thus, a work force in which women play a prominent role
should be less troubled by job turnover and should run up fewer bills for hiring and training.
After mulling these points over in our minds we see that they suggest a business climate in
which men and women play more equal roles, share equally in developing the rules of the game,
and supplement one another's shortcomings. Men and women each have unique strengths, and
their playing more equal roles would restore balance to a climate that has been tilted in favor of
male values and male points of view.
The fifth step is to evaluate these claims and inferences. Are the claims true? Do the inferences
make sense? If your answer is "no," you should proceed to develop a list of counter claims and
counter inferences: "Women are no more honest than men, and therefore their increased
prominence in business will have no positive effect." Or perhaps, "Women are more honest than
men, but honesty has no rightful place in business, so women should stay out of top level
management." Or, "Women tend to shoot from the hip just as often as men do, so their taking
charge of a business organization will save no money." Here is where critical reasoning comes to
the fore.
However, let us assume for the sake of simplicity that we agree with our list of claims and the
reasonableness of the inferences. We can then proceed to the sixth step: We select the first
conclusion given at the beginning of the exercise, and we write an argumentative passage that
supports it. A little organization yields the following:
The conduct of modern business will improve if more high-level jobs are given to
women. The principal reason is that men and women each have their own unique
strengths and abilities, and if those strengths and abilities are allowed to supplement and
reinforce one another, any affected business organization will become more efficient and
will run more smoothly.
For example, women appear to be more detail-oriented than men, while men appear to
be better at developing broad overviews. Broad overviews are necessary for long range
planning, but an attention to detail means that those plans will be more free of "glitches,"
so their implementation will proceed more smoothly. If men and women work together
on long range planning, the result will be improved products and services delivered at a
reduced cost.
Again, women appear to be more cautious and more prudent than men, while men are
more inclined to take chances. Success in business requires taking chances, but men are
inclined to shoot from the hip, while women are not. Shooting from the hip often
produces stray shots, and stray shots mean lost profits. If women and men work together
on deciding what chances to take, a greater number of shots will reach their target.
Another reason women should be given high-level jobs in management is because they
will then be in a position to reshape the rules of the game. The present rules lack balance
because they were set up by men, who have run big business from the time of its
inception, and who ignored the values, behavioral patterns and points of view they
associated with women. If women's values and perspectives are allowed to influence the
way we conduct business, not only will profit margins increase, but the overall business
climate will be richer and more satisfying to all its participants.
For example, women tend to be more open about their feelings than men. As women
become supervisors themselves, they will expect greater openness from their
subordinates. Everyone in the organization will be encouraged to come forward with their
views, whether they be about unsatisfactory work conditions or any other matter that
bothers them. This increased openness will lead to improved work conditions and greater
efficiency overall.
Also, women tend to be more honest and direct in their answers to superiors. It is
therefore to be expected that women supervisors will encourage their subordinates to be
more honest and direct. Conversely, when those supervisors receive a straight story from
their subordinates, they will be less likely to adopt futile or ill conceived courses of action
in response.
Finally, women tend to be more concerned about career fulfillment than men. As
supervisors, women will be more concerned that their subordinates find fulfillment in
their jobs. The resulting work force will be more stable and less interested in moving on
to greener pastures. Absenteeism will lessen, fewer employees will quit for better jobs,
and less money will be spent hiring and training their replacements. All of this will lead
to increased profits for the business organization and a more satisfying business climate.
This argumentative passage is about 500 words in length, and it does not even mention some of
the points that were outlined prior to writing it. Most of the points mentioned could be elaborated
further and reinforced by additional arguments, yielding a passage of at least 1000 words.
EXERCISE W-2
Use the six-step method described in this section to work the following exercises. Each of the
argumentative passages should be at least 400 words in length.
1. TV: Primary Carrier of Cultural Sickness
by Ralph Georgy
2. Parental Consent Puts Teens in a Bind
by Jennifer Coburn
3. How Computers Can Dull Children¥s Creativity
by Mark Slouka
4. Educating for Sexual Responsibility
by Pamela DeCarlo
5. U.S. - Murder Capital of the World
by George Bryjak
6. The Times Require Thoughtful Religion
by Michael Gotlieb
7. Same-Sex Marriage: Prohibiting Homosexual Union Serves No Useful Social Purpose
by Benita Berkson and Ross Porter
8. The Children Condemned to Slavery
by George Bryjak
9. Deadbeat Dads: Court's Custody Bias Is Partly to Blame
by Armin A. Brott
10. Death Penalty Is Not a Deterrent to Murder--In Fact, It May Have the Opposite Effect
by Jesse Gillies
11. Perspective On Evolution / Creation: Can 80% of Us be Dead Wrong?
by Phillip E. Johnson
12. Perspective On Brazil: Suffer the Little Children
by S. Gregory Jones
13. Loofah Is a Many Splendored Thing
by Jenijoy La Belle
14. School Sports: Latest New Age Target
by John Leo