Critical Analysis of the Life Situation - Assignment Example

Critical Thinking al Affiliations Question One The whole topic of critical thinking and critical judgement has found a great place inthe present society whereby the final solutions to disputes are critically analysed. This involves even the so thought slightest issues that arise in the day to day life so that a clear guideline as to how the matter was solved is evaluated. Critical analysis of a situation involves weighing ideas from both sides of the case at hand and coming up with a rationale decision that is normally the final solution. This becomes a tricky topic because it has never been an easy task to prove the wrong party wrong since they will always present arguments that prove their innocence. Although these arguments are evidences of what took place, it requires a sharp mind to try look into the matter and make a decision that does not seem to be favouring one side of the case. This paper presents two cases and how they could be handled critically to reach a decision or a solution that is rationale. In the dog case provided, B’s dog attacked A’s dog viciously despite the fact that B denies the accusations. From the evidence provided by C, she says that B’ dog had just attacked her dog barely half an hour ago. Since critical judgement is based on analysing situations from various points of view, the first judgement can be that B’s dog was too much unattended to that very day. This is because its owner would have been more careful after it attacked C’s dog bearing in mind that the time frame was barely thirty minutes. Since dogs are considered as pets, they need close attention and the manner in which they behave depends on how their owners handle them, then it can be true that B’s owner has failed in the good management of her dog. The fact that the dog repeated a mistake within thirty minutes means that it is used to doing that without being reprimanded since that is a very short period to repeat the same mistake. It can also be concluded that B’s owner doesn’t feed the dog well hence the attacks can be linked to hunger (Riggs & Hellyer-Riggs 2014). Even though A’s dog thoroughly attacked B’s dog, this can be attributed to self-defence by the dog; courtesy of the saying that ‘do not assume a lion that has been rained on for a cat’. This dog might have been totally frightened by the actions of B’s dog that it fought back with all its strength since it is not used to being attacked by a fellow dog. The fact that C’s owner testifies that her dog often has no issues such as fights with A’s dog proves that A’s dog is not used to fighting or creating scenes with other dogs. It is therefore pointless to assume that A’s dog decided for the first time to attack B’s dog if it did not attack C’s dog. Maybe a difference in species would have justified B’s claims but since all the animals are dogs, then it can be critically argued out that they should relate in the same way, depending on how they have been coached by their owners (Bednar & Welch2012). In this situation, more arguments can be used to make conclusions in the case including the story told by the jogger who says that he saw B’s dog start a fight by following a certain dog while barking loudly. From his story, it is evident that B’s dog is capable of starting a fight since it is the one that followed the other dog. Maybe the other dog was not willing to hurt B’s dog with the evidence that it even took off, trying to avoid fighting back. This other dog, although not specified, might have been A’s dog that tried to resist the fight but was pushed into it by B’s dog following it. A’s dog might have been so upset by B’s dog that it fought back seriously so that it would teach B’s dog a lesson with an effort of preventing it from repeating the act another day. These should have caused the serious injuries on B’s dog that he shows out to me as the warden. Since B has no opposition against these arguments presented by C and the jogger, then the witnesses should be telling the truth. I can also make a conclusion that B’s dog might be having a problem in its upbringing because of the fourth witness D who comes out clearly to state that A’s dog bonds well with his. This is also the same case as C whose dog also normally has no problems with her dog hence creating a dilemma as to why B says that her dog was attacked by A’s dog. It becomes almost impossible to assume B’s allegations since the same would have happened with C’s and D’s dogs. This means that B’s dog may be having a social problem or the mode of upbringing by its owner does not allow it to mingle with new dogs. Therefore, B should take responsibility of the actions done by her dog because it is evident that her dog should be having a problem which she could have solved before allowing it to be in the company of others. This is because B has the total control over the behaviour of her dog since when she decided to keep it as a pet she should have understood the impacts of her dog to the other people in the community. Critically, as the main judge of this case, I can also argue out that A could have helped to prevent the thorough wounds created on B’s dog. She should have heard B’s dog coming to attack and prevent the attack by separating the dogs instead of leaving her dog attack its opponent. Obviously, a dog cannot attack another without making some noise, hence the proof that some signal was sent, which the dog owners would have heard. The joggers testimony also puts it that B’s dog made some noise before attacking hence A should have tried to separate the dogs before attack. Furthermore, the dog testified by the jogger might not have been B’s dog hence B can also argue to be innocent. Question Two The newly appointed ambassador case would expectedly bring controversies bearing in mind that he had been appointed rather than being elected. This means that the leader only met the expectations of a small percentage of the citizens and the shortcomings of the leader were also assumed. His appointment may have been due to some selfish gains by the specific people who saw him fit. There is no assurance that the leader’s name was passed out to the public for approval before the welcoming party was organized. This, to some extent, would prevent even the demonstrations that were witnessed since the people’s views would be determined and appropriate actions taken. Human rights are widely respected concepts all over the world and their violation cannot be tolerated especially when the person violating them is a person said to be their leader. It may be true that the leader violated human rights with the historical evidence that he was actively involved. This heinous act may have forced the AFA who no longer want any more human rights mismanagement, bearing in mind that he will be in a better position to execute duties as an ambassador in an unruly way. The evidences of the abuse of human rights committed by the leader can be gotten from the various human rights groups since they must be keeping records of all people involved in such scandals (Carlson, 2012) The government was lenient enough to allow the citizens to apply their rights to demonstrate peacefully since they never cancelled any demonstration from either side. It allowed both the AFA and R33 to proceed with their demonstrations provided that the police provided a close monitor over them. With the fact that the ambassador is accused of human right violation, the R33 group must have been funded by some people affiliated to those involved in the appointment of the ambassador. This is because the R33 group had not planned any demonstration first, but were only trying to counter the actions of the AFA which can be termed as malicious. If the ambassador was actually clean, then the R33 people would not worry themselves trying to fight back since a very low percentage of people would support the AFA. The R33 might have been afraid that that the AFA would create a large influence from the citizens in the issues that would be raised during their demonstrations. This could explain the reason as to why the R33 provided a large number of demonstrators that overwhelmed the number of police provided. The R33 are the only ones who would produce many people in the demonstration because they feared to lose the battle, considering that the AFA could be having facts from the human rights groups. The idea of the AFA leader being hurt in the demonstration suggests that they could be having substantial facts against the ambassador which the R33 didn’t want the public to know. This leader is the one who is expected to have all the documents and information about the idea being raised in the demonstration and he is expected to be the target by their opponents. Therefore the fact that he was injured in the attack could have been expected in the process of demonstration since the government would not want its decisions violated if at all these decisions were expected to benefit them in a way. Some appointments that are done are usually performed and guarded in such a way that no member of the public would ever have a basis of opposing them. In some case as this one, such an opposition leader is normally put in a situation that will prevent him/her from ever wanting to lead demonstrations against the government again. In this scenario, Fran Lee was hit on the head which is a dangerous organ and there is no expected full recovery. This could be the government’s deal to scare him from ever wanting to be involved in opposing government’s proceedings since it has made her fear for her life. She might also die since even at the hospital she is still in coma and her life still at risk. The followers might also fear the same happening to them and quit the demonstration hence the government appointment succeeds without opposition (Natale & Ricci 2006). Maybe Fran could be able to tell exactly who hit her but since she is unconscious, some evidence can only be obtained from the police and one of them claiming that she was hit by a rock can be used in this case. Since the police saw the rock coming from the R33 demonstrators, the R33 are claimed to be on the wrong. However, the police should also have tried to prevent the R33 from throwing the stones by talking to them, since they were at very close ranges. Preventing Fran alone does not make enough sense since the police would also try to prevent themselves from being hit and it could be in the process that Fran was hit. This could also suggest the partnership of the police with the government for siding with the R33 group since they did not prevent them from throwing rocks, destroying the peaceful nature of the demonstrations. With such reasoning, it can be totally exempted that the R33 hit Fran because witnesses from the human activist lawyer and the ATV camera crew state otherwise. According to them, it is the police who struck and injured Fran using their batons and this could be true since they could have been trying to hide evidence by trying to destroy ATV’s cameras so that they would not capture anything. Although all the R33 members denied the claims by P that one of them threw a stone at Lee, the claims made by M could be stirred up by the police so that the police department and the government at large do not feel ashamed by the act of a police officer hitting a citizen. However, reports from the hospital suggesting serious skull injury must have been due to a short range target done by the police. References Arslan, R., Gulveren, H., & Aydin, E. (2014). A research on critical thinking tendencies and factors that affect critical thinking of higher education students. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(5), 43-59. Bednar, P. M., & Welch, C. (2012). Critical systemic thinking as a foundation for information systems research practice. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, 10(3), 144-155. Carlson, S. (2012). INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS INFLUENCE CRITICAL THINKING: DO STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS AGREE? Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Educational Leadership. Proceedings, 17(1), 11-16. Crenshaw, P., Hale, E., & Harper, S. L. (2011). Producing intellectual labour in the classroom: The utilization of a critical thinking model to help students take command of their thinking. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8(7), 13-26. Natale, S., & Ricci, F. (2006). Critical thinking in organizations. Team Performance Management, 12(7), 272-277. Riggs, L. W., & Hellyer-Riggs, S. (2014). Development and motivation In/For critical thinking. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (Online), 11(1), 1. Read More