Page 1

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone

Name: Rukayat Alabi.

Date: March 6, 2024

Critical Thinking Final Touchstone

In this assignment, you will make two contrasting normative arguments about what one ought
to do. Both arguments will be about the same topic, and so at least one of the arguments is
likely to be something you don't actually agree with. You will compose the arguments in
standard form—that is, as a series of statements that end with your conclusion. Reminder: Do
not write as an essay!

Part I. Select your topic and arguments.

a. Choose a topic from the following list:

● Should people eat meat?
● Should marijuana be legal?
● Should pet cats be kept indoors?
● Should zoos exist?
● Should customers leave a tip in
a coffee shop?
● Should seat belt wearing be
mandatory?
● Should children be required to take
gym/PE classes?
● Should public roads be used for
private car parking?

b. Write two logically contradictory normative conclusions for the topic. You do not need to
agree with both (or either!) conclusions, but you should be able to logically support both
of them.
The conclusions need not be phrased exactly the same as they are phrased in the topic
list, but they do need to be logically contradictory to one another. For example, if you
selected the topic "Should people eat meat?", your conclusions might be:

● People should not eat meat.

● People should eat meat.

But it would also be acceptable to choose:

● People should reduce their meat consumption.

● People need not reduce their meat consumption.

c. These conclusions will be the final line of your argument. If you revise a conclusion after
writing the argument, you should revise the conclusion here to match.

Conclusion #1: Wearing a seat belt should be mandatory.

 Page 2

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone

Conclusion #2: Wearing a seat belt should not be mandatory.

Part II. Write your arguments in standard form.

a. Standard form is a series of numbered statements. Each should be one sentence long.
The final statement is the conclusion. You do not need to label statements as
premises or conclusions; it is understood by the form of the argument that all
statements are premises except the final one, which is always the conclusion.
b. There should be at least one normative statement (stating what people should do) and
at least one descriptive statement (describing something to be true). Statements that
predict outcomes or describe what people believe are not normative. A good way to
determine if a statement is normative is looking for verb phrases like “should,” “ought,” or
“have an obligation to.”
c. If any of your premises make factual statements that are not common knowledge and
widely accepted, include a source supporting your reference. This can be an APA
citation or just a link to a reputable website or publication. Here is a helpful resource for
APA references.
d. Place an asterisk (*) by the normative premise(s) that support the conclusion.
e. Do not use your conclusion as a premise. This is the fallacy of “begging the question.”
f. There may be a subargument within your argument, a conclusion reached by premises
that then becomes a conclusion that supports your premise. If there is a subargument,
underline the subconclusion.
g. The conclusion should be the final statement in your argument (as given above) and
begin with the word“therefore.” These should correspond to the conclusions from Part 1.
h. The complete argument (including conclusion) should be 5-7 statements.

Argument #1
1. People who do not wear seat belt expend more money on
insurance and on medical bills because their injuries are usually
greater than when they have their seat belt on. Therefore, seat
belts should be worn always in a moving vehicle.
https://www.uab.edu/uabmagazine/seatbeltssavelives
2. Cars are equipped with alarms that go off if a seat belt is not
worn. This can be a distraction and an annoyance to the driver
or other people in the vehicle. To keep everyone safe in a
moving vehicle, seat belts should be worn always.
3. Seat belts does not only protect the outer layer of the
passenger’s or driver’s body, but the insides as well, which is
why wearing a seat belts should be mandatory.
4. *Wearing a seat belt in a moving vehicle is the best way to stay
safe, therefore you should wear a seat belt.
5. About 70% of the people in 1996 were killed because they did
 Page 3

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone

not wear their seat belt, therefore over half of were killed by not
wearing a seat belt
https://www.uab.edu/uabmagazine/seatbeltssavelives
6. *Wearing a seat belt in a moving vehicle is the law, therefore
you ought to wear a seat belt.
7. *Seat belts are known to reduce the risk of injury by about 60%,
therefore, if you wear a seat belt you are less likely to get injured
in during an accident. https://www.iihs.org/topics/seat-belts

Argument #2
1. * Seat belts can trap you in the car involved in an accident,
causing more injuries. Take for instance, if there is a fire
breakout in the car or you crash into a lake, you may be trapped
in the car because you have your seat belt on. Therefore, you
should not have to wear a seat belt. https://trantololaw.com/law-
firm-blog/caraccidents/refuse-seat-belts/
2. Airbags are installed in cars to protect our bodies during an
accident, without being guarded to our seats. We should be able
to rely on airbags to keep us safe, not seat belts.
3. *As a citizen of the United States, being forced to wear a seat
belt takes away some of our freedoms to make choices. People
do not want to feel controlled by the government. Wearing a
seat belt should be an individual
choice.https://itstillruns.com/cons-wearing-seatbelts-
4827103.html
4. Seat belts can cause harm to our bodies when in an accident,
the belt can cause bones to break, or an injury to our necks.
Seat belts should not be a rule to wear in a vehicle.
5. Wearing a seat belt should be a choice that is left to you as it is
your right, therefore you wearing a seat belt should not be
mandatory.
6. Seat belts can be dangerous and pose a serious threat in a life-
or-death situation. Because seat belts can cause more issues,
they should not be mandatory to wear in a moving vehicle.

Part III. Reflection

1. Are your arguments deductive or My Argument is deductive. I had an

inductive? Explain what the difference
is between the two and why you see
your argument as inductive or
deductive. (2 sentences)
argument with a conclusion, and it was
backed up with evidence. The difference is
inductive reasoning looks at a plan and then
plans according to that and makes decisions
around your plan. Deductive is backing up an
argument with evidence.

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
2. Identify either a deductive rule of
inference or an inductive practice that
helps support your conclusion. Explain
what the rule or practice means and
how it was used to reach your
conclusion. (2-3 sentences)
3. What moral framework do you use to
justify your normative conclusions
(utilitarian, deontological, or virtue
ethics)? Explain the meaning of the
moral framework and how adopting
that perspective leads to your
conclusion. The two arguments do not
need to follow the same moral theory.
(4-6 sentences)
4. What assumptions are you making
that may compromise your
arguments? Use language from the
tutorials that identify cognitive and
unconscious biases. This should be
about your experience, not a general
response about potential biases. (4-6
sentences)
5. What opinion did you have when you
began this assignment, and what
challenges to critical thinking did you
encounter when arguing for a
conclusion you didn't agree with? How
did logic and critical thinking help you
to think about your topic from two
different angles? This should be about
your personal experience, not a
general response about the
challenges of considering other points
of view. (4-6 sentences)
Refer to the checklist below throughout the Touchstone process. Do not submit your
Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.
Page 4
To accomplish my conclusion I used
conditional elimination, or Modus Ponens. I
stated true and proven facts, in turn showing
my conclusion was true. Conditional
elimination shows a sequence of truth that
proves a conclusion.
When arguing the use of seat belts, I am
using the deontological framework. This
framework is based on a person’s individual
choice, not depending on the consequences.
This really matches the arguments of wearing
seat belts because people believe it is their
right to look at the evidence and make the
choice to wear a seat belt or not. There are
people who know about the consequences of
not wearing a seat belt and would still choose
to sit in a moving vehicle without wearing it.
I compromised my argument of not wearing a
seat belt because, in my opinion, you should
wear one. I also found it difficult to find
evidence that supported not wearing seat
belts, so that argument may not be as
convincing. I believe some of it was
unconscious, and just my beliefs are deep
rooted. I consciously know that I was having
hard time finding evidence and that the
second argument would not be strong.
I did find myself struggling with arguing that
seat belts should not be worn. It felt like it was
against everything I knew and believed. I had
to really play devil’s advocate of why
someone in a moving vehicle would not want
to wear a seat belt. My opinion at first was
that this assignment might be a little
challenging, but something I can feel
confident about and conquer. I used my
knowledge of the class to look at different
angles and see things in a different way. At
the end, even though I still did not agree, I
could see why people would choose to not
wear a seat belt in a moving vehicle.
 Page 5

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone

1. Argument Preparation

❒ Is each argument in standard form, not paragraph form?

❒ Do your two arguments have logically contradictory conclusions?
❒ Is each argument at least five declarative sentences, ending in a conclusion?
❒ Does each argument have a normative conclusion (saying what people ought to do)?
❒ Is there at least one normative premise that supports each conclusion?

2. Annotating Your Argument

❒ Did you place an asterisk (*) on the normative premise(s) that support your conclusion?
❒ Did you underline any subconclusions in your argument?
❒ Are there sources for any assertions that are fact-based and not well known/accepted?<

3. Reflection Questions

❒ Did you answer all five of the reflection questions satisfactorily?

❒ Do your answers meet the length requirement and fully answer the question?