Assignment 2A (10%)
Where Module 1 introduced you to the practice of doing ethics, Module 2 introduces you to an important skill that is required for applying ethical theories: critical thinking. After working through all the course materials in Module 2, you now have a good idea of what “critical thinking” entails. It involves thinking rationally and detecting failures in argumentation. Critical thinking is a kind of “intellectual self-defence” that may help you avoid arguments and conclusions that are faulty or morally wrong.
You are now in the professor’s office for a second meeting. As it happens, the professor is impressed with your work.
The professor shares an observation with you: “I really appreciate how you think.” It turns out this is a segue into the next task! “I need you to do a basic analysis of an ethical argument taken from the media. My other assistants and I will use your basic analysis as data for our research work.” While you might be unsure, the professor’s confidence in you means a lot. So you agree and ask to know more.
First, you are to find and state the article’s conclusion. Second, the professor wants you to locate and state the article’s premises that support the conclusion. As the Textbook states, this helps show what is logically relevant to the article’s argument. Finally, the professor wants you to identify any fallacies in the argument. You need to do this and explain which fallacy is at work.
You are provided with an article on a current ethical issue called “Real Motivation for Diabetes Prevention.”
You will analyze the article’s argument by identifying the components of moral argumentation and its informal fallacies.
Instructions for Completion
Open the Assignment 2A Answer Shell document, where you will find your article as well as space to write your answer.