Applying Critical Thinking in Penn-Mart Memo - Essay Example

Applying Critical Thinking in Penn-Marts Memo Applying Critical Thinking in Penn-Marts Memo It is imperative for individuals to apply their critical thinking skills in evaluating written materials in order to formulate informed decisions to either accept of refute presented ideas and opinions. Critical thinking is defined by Browne and Keeley (2014, p. 4) as "Awareness of a set of interrelated critical questions, ability to ask and answer these critical questions in an appropriate manner, and desire to actively use the critical questions". In extrapolation, Moore (2010) posits that critical thinking creates or forms direction for a better understanding of issues. This discussion is an application of the steps of critical thinking in Penn-Mart case memo or case study. Before applying the steps of critical thinking in Penn-Mart case study, it would be important to outline the benefits of critical thinking. Browne and Keeley (2014) notes that critical thinking helps individuals react decisively, review and critic a presented material. In this respect, applying critical thinking in Penn-Mart memo forms the basis for its review and criticism. Based on the writers articulation of ideas and conclusions, the reader can either accept or reject the presented material. The first step of critical thinking as presented by Browne and Keeeley (2014) is identification of the issue and conclusion of the subject matter. In other words, this step involves identification of the argument, hypothesis and the projected or anticipated communication. To identifying the issue, Browne and Keeley (2014) advises that one ought to reflect and raise questions in regards to what the writer is responding or reacting to. In this respect, the issue in Penn-Marts case is the escalating expenditure in terms of healthcare benefits for the employees. Conversely, there must also be the identification of the conclusion in critical thinking. This involves a reflection on what the author of the material is seeks to establish (Browne and Keeley, 2014). In this case, the conclusion of Penn-Mart case can be deduced from the objective of the proposed "Get Well" program. It is the belief of the writer that improving employees awareness of their individual health status and subsequently assisting them identify health problems that could be alleviated or lessened by means of individual improvement approaches would significantly reduce the costs incurred by Penn-Mart through healthcare benefits. The writer clearly defines the issue and conclusion. The second step of critical thinking is identification of the rationale (Browne and Keeley, 2014). This step involves scrutinizing the rationale or reasons behind the writers conclusion. In the context of critical thinking, reasons are defined by Browne and Keeley (2014, p.33) as "Beliefs, evidence, metaphors, analogies, and other statements offered to support conclusions". In any written material, the author ought to provide a credible explanation or rationale in order to convince or influence the reader into acknowledging his or her presented ideas and conclusion. In providing the reasons for the conclusion, the writer of the memo cites available evidence on past methodical investigations on obesity and conversely assert that the "Get Well" strategy conforms to analogous action plans aimed at improving individual health status or fitness, for instance Mayor Bloombergs ban on large soft drinks. Since other similar strategies have presented positive results, it is therefore highly likely that the "Get Well" action plan will realize positive results. Browne and Keeley (2014) outline the third step in critical thinking to include identification of indefinite words and phrases with unclear meaning. In essence, words may allude different meanings depending on the perspective and beliefs of both the writer and the reader. Indeed, Penn-Marts memo include some unclear words that are subsequently elucidate by subsequent rationalization. For instance, the word unfavorable could have different meanings depending on whether the reader agrees or refutes the writers arguments. However, the meaning of the word unfavorable in the writers perspective is validated when the writer posits in the memo that "Our internal research has showed that wages and benefits make up roughly 40 percent of our annual budget". This means that the unfavorable cost trends are attributed to the inflated expenses related to employees wages and benefits. Similarly, an example of an unclear phrase in the memo is "Individuals who voluntarily neglect their health account". It is hard for the reader to deduce the meaning of this phrase without additional explication of the phrase by the writer. In this respect, the writer goes ahead and gives explanation of the phrase to include smokers, those individuals who do not exercise, as well as individuals who defer preventative care. In this respect, the Pen-Marts memo writer gives clear elucidation of all ambiguous words. In critical thinking, the fourth step of evaluation is identifying the values and descriptive assumptions (Browne and Keeley, 2014). In addition, Browne and Keeley (2014, p.61) assert that "When authors take a position on a social controversy, they typically prefer one value over another value, they have value priorities or preferences". Understanding or comprehending the writers values is therefore key to avoiding conflicting perspectives. In view of the Penn-Marts memo, the author believes that health screening should be mandatory for all employees as poor health status is an impediment as it forces Penn-Mart to incur huge expenses in the form of healthcare benefits. In further justification, Browne and Keeeley (2014) brings forward the fact that the reasons ought to support the conclusion. This support can only be achieved if the writer presupposes or presumes some of his or her suggestions. In the context of Penn-Marts case, the memos author presupposes that it is worth obligating screening of all employees at the expense of infringing their constitutional or legal rights as is in the case of the local Corporate Challenge road race where some employees challenged Penn-Marts compulsion for all employees to participate as a contravention of their rights. The fact that the reader is able to clear identify the values and descriptive assumptions in the memo warrants the readers reception or acknowledgement of the writers ideas. The fifth step of critical evaluation or thinking relates to making a verdict on the interpretation or analysis of the material. Keeping the verdict in mind, the fifth step is asserted by Browne and Keeley (2014) as identification of whether there are erroneous beliefs or notions in the analysis. In applying this step in the context of Penn-Marts case, it would be important to establish whether the author diverts the readers attention by speciously denoting facts as pertinent. There are instances in the memo that the writer makes reference to incorrect assumptions and in so doing making his postulation immaterial to the conclusion. As an example, the writer firmly believes that many Penn-Mart employees want to get fit. Secondly, the writer believes that giving a blood sample and filling out a survey form is not intrusive or burdensome based on the assumption that people do it routinely. These assumptions by the writer can be construed as tricks aimed at influencing or manipulating the readers reasoning and hence wrongly manipulating the reader into accepting the writers ideas. Basing the "Get-Well" program on the assumption that many Penn-Marts employees want to get fit is what is referred to by Browne and Keeley (2014, p.81) as "Appeal to popularity". Browne and Keeley (2014) notes that endeavoring to validate an argument by applying collective opinions fallaciously presupposes that collective views are advantageous or beneficial. In this respect, some of the writers assumptions are misleading. For the reader to acknowledge the writers assertions, each and every argument presented must be supported by relevant evidence. Conversely, it is important to establish whether the presented evidence to support specific assertions is reliable. Establishment the legitimacy of the assertions made by the author is the sixth step of critical evaluation (Browne and Keeley, 2014). In other words, it is of fundamental significance to ascertain the quality of facts and data presented in the material. In this step, the legitimacy of the claims is ascertained through the use of instinct, personal experiences, case studies, testimonials and appeals to authority. In clarifying the use of appeals to authority, Browne and Keeley (2014, p.100) observes that a writer or author can defend his or her claims "By appealing to authority or sources that are supposed to know more than most us about a given topic". In conformity to the use of appeals of authority, the Penn-Marts memo writer appeals to Charles Darwins famous quote "Survival of the fittest" to depict that only the fittest employees would be able to survive in Penn Mart. In this regard, the writer makes use of adequate substantiations to support his assertions. The sixth step of critical evaluation is related to the seventh step that involves ascertaining the authenticity of presented claims or evidence by use of personal observations, research studies and analogies. In this regard, Penn-Mart memos writer presents credible evidence to support his claims. As an illustration, the writer makes reference to numerous research studies on obesity in scholarly journals to support his assertions that the "Get Well" program would ultimately achieve its projected purpose. In addition, the writer mentions that the recommendations presented in the memo have been thoroughly researched and consequently present up to date data and facts. Another approach that a writer can legitimize his or her assertions is through the use of appeals of authority. After establishing the legitimacy of presented evidence, the reader ought to establish whether presented issues can be viewed or elucidated divergently (Browne and Kelley, 2014). This is the eight step of critical evaluation. In other words, certain incidents in n event may have different causes and as thus can be elucidated in different perspectives. In reference to Penn-Marts memo, the author postulates that spiraling costs of employee healthcare benefits is attributed to lack of a mandatory wellness program. There are other reasons the costs of employee healthcare benefits may increase. For instance, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000) attributes increased healthcare benefits to increasing health insurance. The author therefore failed to consider other viewpoints and unfairly concluded the rising costs of employee healthcare benefits to be attributed exclusively to lack of a proper wellness program. Writers often employ the use of statistics to support their ideas. The ninth step in critical evaluation therefore involves an investigation into whether the statistics used to support ideas or opinions are misleading, unreliable or unrepresentative (Browne and Kelley, 2014). Statistics may be misleading depending on how they are used. In Penn-Marts memo case study, the statistics used seems to be incomplete. Browne and Kelley (2014, p.144) clearly brings forward the fact that percentages ought to be used together with "Absolute numbers on which the percentage is based". The memo therefore fails to give complete statistics in that only percentages are presented. For instance, the writer asserts that "Our internal research has showed that wages and benefits make up roughly 40 percent of our annual budget". It would have been more convincing and informing if the writer delineates what this percentage means in terms of numbers. Other phrases showing incomplete percentages cited in the case study include "Benefits costs could consume as much as 15 percent of our total profits in 2015". This statistic is clearly inaccurately identified as it is founded on unproved evidence and as thus could be misleading. The tenth step in critical evaluation involves establishing whether an considerable facts and data have been left out (Browne and Kelly, 2014). Omission of relevant data and facts in the context of Penn-Marts case can be construed in relation to incomplete statistics. When presenting percentages to support an idea, failure to present the percentages in terms of numbers can be viewed as an omission of relevant data. According to Browne and Kelley (2014), a material is more convincing when the a range is denoted both in terms of percentages and in numbers. The last step in critical evaluation is ascertaining whether the writers conclusion is rational. In reference to the memo, the writer considers employees involvement in health screening in only two perspectives; Employees in support of the Get Well program and those who oppose the program. Consequently, he makes an erroneous conclusion that employees who oppose the program have something to hide. This conclusion fails to take into account other factors. For example, an employee may oppose the program based on religious beliefs. As outlined by Bitter (2013), some religious outfits caution their followers against any engagement in medical interventions. In this regard, opposition to the program may be founded on other factors other than the fact that an employee has something to hide. In conclusion, there are eleven steps that ought to be followed in critical evaluation. These steps include: Explication of the issues and conclusions; establishing rationale; making out indefinite terms and phrases; identification of presupposed terms and phrases; identification of misleading notions and beliefs; establishing the legitimacy and validity of presented evidence; identification of alternative elucidations; establishment of whether statistics used to support ideas are illusory; making out whether any relevant facts and data has been left out; and an explication of whether presented conclusions are rational or logical. Application of all these steps in analyzing presented material forms the basis for either acknowledgement or disapproval of presented material. References Bitter, J. (2013). Theory and Practice of Family Therapy and Counseling (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2014). Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (11th ed.). London, UK: Pearson Education Inc. Moore, D. T. (2010). Critical Thinking and Intelligence Analysis. Collingdale, PA: Diane Publishing. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2000). Employment Cost Indexes, 1975-99. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Read More