DMBA 610 W2 Critical Thinking Assignment

Individual Paper I

The memorandum from Salvador Monella to the Board of Directors addresses the rising costs of employee healthcare benefits at Penn-Mart. His communication includes an explanation of his purpose in addressing the healthcare costs, findings regarding Penn-Mart’s benefits costs, a recommended program to implement for cost reduction, and a discussion containing support for their recommendation. While some business people may be tempted to simply accept the information presented in Mr. Monella’s memorandum, it is my opinion, after reading Browne and Keeley’s Asking the Right Questions (2012), that adopting a critical thinking approach is the most effective way to evaluate the document.
Using a critical thinking approach to evaluate this business document will help a reader to know when to accept and when to reject information they are presented. The reader knows that information that passes the critical thinking questions they ask is worth accepting. Implementing strong-sense critical thinking and using the same skills to evaluate all claims, even one’s own, prevents falling to conventionality.
In the tenth edition of Asking the Right Questions (Browne & Keeley, 2012), there are ten critical questions to ask that are presented. The ten questions are: What are the issues and the conclusions?, What are the reasons?, Which words or phrases are ambiguous?, What are the value and descriptive assumptions?, Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?, How good is the evidence?, Are there rival causes?, Are the statistics deceptive?, What significant information is omitted?, What reasonable conclusions are possible? (Browne & Keeley, p. 9) After asking and evaluating each of these questions, a reader will have a solid basis on which to decide if Mr. Monella’s recommendations should be accepted. It is my opinion that his recommendations should not be accepted until more information is provided. Each of the ten critical thinking questions will be

Cited: published research studies on obesity appeal to authority. A research study is used as evidence with data from underwriters is cited twice. The “Get Well” program is claimed to make Penn-Mart employees feel better about themselves, generalizing from the research sample. Finally, an employee survey about satisfaction with their benefits could be a biased survey. “Are there rival causes?” (p. 128) This question helps evaluate an argument’s strength by examining any other reasonable causes for the event in question. Rival outcomes would provide different causes for the rising employee healthcare benefits costs at Penn-Mart. The memorandum states that the rise in benefits costs is driven by causes such as an aging workforce with tenure. However, other possible causes exist, such as inflation for common medical procedures such as physical examinations. The memorandum also demonstrates the fundamental attribution error by citing individuals who “voluntarily neglect their health” (p. 1), although there may be other reasons they do not exercise, such as preexisting conditions like arthritis. While statistics may seem like impressive additions to an argument, they may also be deceptive. They frequently do not “prove what they appear to prove.” (p. 142) Knowing the unreliableness of statistics makes it important for a critical thinker to ask, are the statistics deceptive? (p. 142) Statistics stating that wages and benefits make up roughly 40 percent of Penn-Mart’s annual budget are cited, however 40% is not clearly defined or accurately identified. Also cited is data from underwriters indicating that participation in voluntary health benefits programs “peaked at 5% of total FTE’s in 2006” (p. 1), but what does 5% of total FTE amount to? The 5% is again not clearly defined or accurately identified. Equally as significant as the information included in an argument is the significant information that is omitted. Omitting significant information from an argument shapes the reasoning in favor of the author. In order to judge the quality of an argument’s reasoning, a critical thinker must ask, what significant information is omitted? (p. 153) For example, in Penn-Mart’s situation, the potential long-term negative effects of the Get Well program are omitted. Could the program have negative consequences? The suggestions state that employees who do not comply with the terms of “Get Well” should be given the possibility of paying a fine, declining future healthcare benefits, resigning, or being fired. However, the memorandum does not address what the consequences might be of the majority of employees refusing Get Well would be to Penn-Mart. If the company selects to fire those employees, they may lose many workers, causing the whole organization to suffer. The final question to ask in the critical thinking model is, what reasonable conclusions are possible? (p. 163) As a critical thinker, the objective is to determine and accept the most reasonable conclusion(s) to an argument that most closely adheres to personal value preferences. There are frequently alternative conclusions or multiple conclusions that are possible given the reasoning of an argument. For example, one conclusion to the Penn-Mart situation is that the Get Well program is the best solution to rising healthcare costs. Another conclusion may be that there is another program that may be a better fit for Penn-Mart. After asking and evaluating all ten of the critical questions to ask, I believe that I have determined the most reasonable conclusion. To determine the best conclusion, it would be necessary to obtain clarification about the ambiguous terms before evaluating the argument’s strength. Without that information it is not possible to make a firm opinion about the strength of reasoning. Until the clarification is provided, it is my opinion that the suggestions of the consultant company should not be accepted. There are too many ambiguous terms and fallacies employed to determine that the argument is strong enough for acceptance. Resources Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S.M. (2010).  Asking the right questions:  A guide to critical thinking (10th ed.).  Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Pearson/Prentice Hall.