critical thinking and decision making

DMBA610: CRITICAL THINKING INDIVIDUAL PAPER 1

DMBA610: Critical Thinking and Decision Making Assignment

Jody R. Warner

University of Maryland University College


DMBA610: Critical Thinking and Decision Making Assignment

Introduction

Browne & Keeley (2010, p. 2) claim “Critical thinking consists of an awareness of a set of

interrelated critical questions, the ability and willingness to ask and answer them at appropriate

times, and the desire to actively use the critical questions.” This paper will examine the

aforementioned claims against Mary Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012)

to Hector Fuentes with reference to Governor Gloria Gainor’s intention to privatize the state’s

DMV information systems management function. Throughout this paper focus will be aimed at

providing an open-minded and non-biased assessment of the intent behind Mary Ford’s email

(personal communication, January 30, 2012) through the application of Browne & Keeley’s

(2007) Critical Thinking methodology.

A note about M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley

Ironically, before reading the book I applied my own version of “Critical Thinking” to

questioning the legitimacy of the authors to instruct readers on what they coin as “Critical

Thinking.” Much to my surprise their book (Browne & Keeley, 2007) that is the center of this

research paper has “37 editions published between 1986 and 2012 in English and Chinese and

held by 1,521 libraries worldwide” (Keeley, Stuart M. 2013). Born in 1941, Stuart Keeley has

“38 works in 89 publications in 5 languages and 3,181 library holdings”, and born in 1944 M.

Neil Browne has “54 works in 132 publications in 6 languages and 3,949 library holdings”

(Browne, Neil M., 2013) – it’s clear that both authors have a quite impressive history of writing

scholarly books and are well qualified to guide graduate students on the application of “Critical


Thinking”. Additionally, Browne and Keeley co-authored the first edition of “Asking the Right

Questions” in 1981 and then coined the term “Critical Thinking” in 1986 with their first edition

of the text this paper closely examines. (Browne, Neil M., 2013 & Keeley, Stuart M., 2013).

The application of Critical Thinking

What are the issues and the conclusions? (Browne & Keeley, 2007, P. 15-23)

In accordance with the Critical Thinking methodologies set forth by Browne & Keeley (2007)

we must first identify kinds of issues followed by kinds of questions (unless the issue does not

directly jump out at you, then you must first identify the conclusion). Right off the back we can

identify that we have what Keeley and Browne (2007) call a descriptive issue, in that Mary

Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012) raises considerable question about the

legitimacy of the Governor’s decision to privatize. The context of Mary Ford’s email (personal

communication, January 30, 2012) is borderline hostile and she demoralizes the Governors intent

to save the state money by raising doubt about consideration for future ramifications (right

versus wrong as a descriptive issue).

Mary Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012) is centered on an opposition

to age discrimination and a wholehearted concern for the protection of the jobs of seasoned

employees who will likely not fare well in the job market. Moreover, the conclusion of the email

is the promise to help secure reelection of Mr. Hector Fuentes as President of the APEU Local

121, if he votes against the governor’s proposed for privatization of the DMV information

systems management function. Browne & Keeley (2007) state “the last paragraph says a lot” (p.

19) and that “It would be a good idea for you to read it again” (p. 19); this is certainly the case in


Mary Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012), as the entire breadth of the

entire email is communicated in the last paragraph.

Issues:

“You (Hector Fuentes) wanted to know if the union should oppose the outsourcing

proposal.” (Mary Ford’s email, personal communication, January 30, 2012)

Mary Ford (personal communication, January 30, 2012) is adamantly opposed to

management exercising control of the union and she fears age discrimination for her

employees in the event they are displaced.

Conclusions (supportive of same argument):

“APEU Local No. 121 should challenge the governor’s proposed privatization of the

DMV information systems management function as an unfair management practice.”

“Therefore, if you rebut the governor’s proposal, you will win the admiration of all

our members.” (Mary Ford’s email, personal communication, January 30, 2012)

What are the reasons? (Browne & Keeley, 2007, P. 25-35)

Browne & Keeley (2007) place strong emphasis that “Reasons + Conclusion = Argument (p.

26),” and also that argument is not a bad thing as is commonly perceived. It is also stressed that

the best method to determining the true reason(s) is to take a walk in the communicator’s shoes.

In the case of Mary Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012), the reasons I feel

she is opposed to privatization are (1) that it’s illegal and goes against the Pendleton Act of 1883;


(2) it fosters and environment of age discrimination; and, (3) Mary Ford is likely an older

employee herself (which would explain her passion in this argument).

Reasons:

We will ensure your reelection as president of the union - “I (Mary Ford) had lunch

the other day with a group of our members, and everyone was in agreement that if

you (Hector Fuentes) opposed this measure, they would vote for you.” (Mary Ford’s

email, personal communication, January 30, 2012)

Our employees should be commended for doing their jobs well, not punished for it -

“Our members will lose their jobs not because of low productivity or malfeasance but

merely to gain questionable -- and at most marginal -- efficiencies in government

operations.” (Mary Ford’s email, personal communication, January 30, 2012)

It violates law - “This is unfair and violates the merit principle enshrined in the

Pendleton Act of 1883.” (Mary Ford’s email, personal communication, January 30,

2012)

It’s not actually cheaper when you compare apples to apples - “According to a recent

article posted in a prestigious Wall Street newspaper, the additional costs of

overseeing third-party contractors adds 20% of hidden costs to the price of each

government outsourcing contract.” (Mary Ford’s email, personal communication,

January 30, 2012)

Which words or phrases are ambiguous? (Browne & Keeley, 2007, P. 37-52)


Words mean things and perception is key to the delivery of your message, and that is why you

must always exercise caution with what you say and how you say it – if you don’t mean

something, don’t say it! Ambiguity, as Browne & Keeley (2007) point out in book, refers to the

English language having duplicative meanings for many words. Ambiguity can be intentional,

such as is the case of the United States Constitution, or unintentional and without malice.

“Critical Thinking” forces us to remove ambiguity by searching only for words or statements that

support your acceptance of the author’s conclusion. Within the context of Mary Ford’s (personal

communication, January 30, 2012) argument, she does not leave much ambiguity aside from her

lackluster statistics and improperly referenced facts. She clearly states that voting for

privatization is wrong in her opinion and that if Hector Fuentes opposes the Governor’s notion

for privatization he will gain the votes of the folks that Mary represents.

What are the value conflicts and assumptions? (Browne & Keeley, 2007, P. 53-69)

When identify the value conflicts and assumptions, Browne & Keeley (2007) instruct us to

search for hidden meanings and/or agendas that make the identified issue and reason no longer

support the conclusion (affects the argument). In the case of Mary Ford’s email (personal

communication, January 30, 2012) an assumption that pops right out at me is that Mary Ford’s

hidden (or not so hidden) agenda is the pledging votes for Hector Fuentes if he opposes the

governor. Mary Ford is likely scared for her job and for the jobs of her peers. She is distrustful

that the government will do what they promise because she has watched her brother go through a

similar hardship and her brother and many of his former colleagues are still unemployed long

after the end state of his situation. However, Mary Ford’s (personal communication, January 30,

2012) personal feelings that form my assumptions do support the same conclusion that she is


defending sharply with facts (I.e., violation of the Pendleton Act of 1883). However, I do not

believe that Mary Ford (personal communication, January 30, 2012) fully understands what the

Pendleton Act of 1883 was nor does she utilize supported facts to defend her belief; and, much of

her argument is hearsay from Wikipedia or other non-official channels. In my opinion, if you

were trying to challenge an appointed official’s notion it would need to be based on cited

material or whitepapers that illustrate your point.

An interesting point that Browne & Keeley (2007) make is that when a person takes a

position on something that is controversial they tend to elevate one of their values higher than

another one. In my opinion, Mary Ford (personal communication, January 30, 2012) is doing just

that, she is elevating the value of protecting the employment and fair treatment of her employees

and herself over the pledged value of all government employees to reduce the frivolous waste of

taxpayer money. This is an example of a “loyalty-honesty” and an “efficiency-social stability”

value conflict, as identify by Browne & Keeley (2007, p. 60-61).

What are the descriptive assumptions? (Browne & Keeley, 2007, P. 71-81)

Browne & Keeley (2007) identify descriptive assumptions as “beliefs about how the world is

(p. 71),” whereas prescriptive assumptions are “beliefs about how the world should be (p. 71).”

Mary Ford (personal communication, January 30, 2012) identifies the world as being against her

and that the government will make the promise (prescriptive) to ensure rehire, but will not live

up to this promise (descriptive). In identifying with the writer, it’s clear she (Mary) wants to

protect the employees, and her own interests. Nobody wants to be victim of age discrimination or

losing your job because they tie to family and financial stability – that’s why there are laws


against it in the United States. In identifying with the opposition (Governor Gloria Gainor), the

first thing that comes to mind is reducing fraud, waste, and abuse. If there is a common-sense

approach to reducing the cost to taxpayers, then you can bet that any elected official will

diligently target that opportunity; after all that is how elected persons get into office in the first

place (although I suppose that is a debatable topic here recently).

Are there any fallacies in the reasoning? (Browne & Keeley, 2007, P. 83-102)

Keeley & Brown (2007) argue that fallacies are attempts to trick the reader into buying the

writer’s conclusion. These “fallacies” come in three forms, (1) erroneous or incorrect

assumptions, (2) distracting the reader, and (3) giving supportive reasons that are dependent on

the conclusion being true (p. 84). Mary Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30,

2012) is loaded with fallacies, as a matter of speaking it is the fallacies in the email that make it

most entertaining.

Fallacies identified:

“This proposed privatization is an assault on our union.” (Mary Ford’s email, personal

communication, January 30, 2012)

“It is anti-American.” (Mary Ford’s email, personal communication, January 30, 2012)

“Foreign agents will bid for this privatization contract and accept wages lower than our

members receive.” (Mary Ford’s email, personal communication, January 30, 2012)

“This will set the stage for state government to decrease employee wages in the future.”

(Mary Ford’s email, personal communication, January 30, 2012)


“The governor is just trying to demonstrate that management controls the union.” (Mary

Ford’s email, personal communication, January 30, 2012)

“The governor is a bully.” (Mary Ford’s email, personal communication, January 30,

2012)

“If we allow this to happen in the Department of Motor Vehicles, it will happen in all

departments everywhere.” (Mary Ford’s email, personal communication, January 30,

2012)

“Outsourcing is the cause of the current recession.” (Mary Ford’s email, personal

communication, January 30, 2012)

How good is the evidence? (Browne & Keeley, 2007, P. 103-136)

Browne & Keeley (2007) challenge us to find the evidence behind factual claims and reasons

why you should believe them. It is necessary to separate opinions from facts by identifying the

kind of evidence used to support a speaker’s conclusion. Browne & Keeley (2007) argue that

“intuition, personal experience, testimonials, and appeals to authority” are major categories for

types of evidence and are the first that should be sought out when evaluating an argument (p.

107).

Mary Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012) uses the example of her

brother-in-law, who was in a similar situation last year, and has yet to find employment. She also

states “according to him 80% of the time they (management) don’t keep their promises”

(personal communication, January 30, 2012). In my opinion, these are examples of personal

testimony being used as evidence to support Mary Ford’s conclusion that the president should


oppose the governor’s notion to privatize. Mary Ford’s email (personal communication, January

30, 2012) uses a reference to Wikipedia claiming that privatization is a potential violation of the

Pendleton Act of 1883; and, while that may factual the reference is not credible. Wikipedia is an

open source website that is populated with data from its users, and while the data may be true, it

also may be untrue. Since Wikipedia is not in itself a credible reference and it contains data from

users this is an example of a call to authority type of evidence. What Mary Ford should have

done was find the cited reference that the author who posted the data on Wikipedia used to

substantiate the argument.

In further digging into evidence, Browne & Keeley (2007) argue one must question whether

or not we are encountering any of the “four common kinds of evidence: personal observation,

research studies, case examples, and analogies” (p. 117). Much of Mary Ford’s email (personal

communication, January 30, 2012) falls into the categories of personal observation (and intuition

for that matter) and she is ranting mostly on the basis of what she believes she sees coming.

Mary Ford (personal communication, January 30, 2012) cites in her email “a recent article posted

in a prestigious Wall Street newspaper, the additional costs of overseeing third-party contractors

adds 20% of hidden costs to the price of each government outsourcing contract,” and while this

is arguably her strongest argument, it falls into the categories of personal observation and

reliance on a potentially biased study. Mary Ford’s (personal communication, January 30, 2012)

email is one sided and does not afford the reader the opportunity to see the other side of the story

and the evidence provided is unfounded and not credible.

Are there rival causes? (Browne & Keeley, 2007, P. 137-153)


According to Browne & Keeley (2007), “most communicators will provide you with only

their favored causes; the critical reader or listener must generate rival causes” (p. 141). However,

in the case of Mary Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012) it seems that she is

attempting to identify rival causes for Hector Fuentes to use in his decision to support or oppose

the Governor’s notion to privatize. She talks about seasoned employees being forced to learn

new tasks, foreigners bidding at lower costs, and the governor’s desire to put her foot forth and

exercise control of the union. All of which appear at the surface to be examples of rival causes

that support Mary’s argument for opposition to the privatization notion. However, an argument

can be made that reducing costs and implementing state-of-the-art equipment would spur the

creation of additional work. It is also possible that the state is drastically behind the public sector

in terms of providing their service and that the newly privatized service will provide superior

information systems management functions to the public.

Are the statistics deceptive? (Browne & Keeley, 2007, P. 155-165)

Unknowable and biased statistics are used throughout Mary Ford’s email (personal

communication, January 30, 2012) and there is a clear attempt to deceive the reader with

statistics. As Keeley & Brown (2007) point out, statistics are one of the most commonly used

kinds of evidence and Mary Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012) makes

good usage of applying statistical data to sway the reader’s opinion toward the conclusion.

Browne & Keeley (2007) instruct us to locate deceptive statistics by finding out as much as

possible about the given statistic (p. 156). The most clear cut case of deceptive statistical usage

in Mary Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012) was her quoting that


oversight of third-party contractors adds 20% in hidden costs. While that may be true, we don’t

know anything about the statistic and are not given any indication of its merit or if the

comparison is apples to apples and applies to the information system management industry.

Additionally, the aforementioned statistic is deceiving in that information is being omitted.

Hence, we do not know what the 20% is based on. I.e., Let’s say that it is proven to be 80% more

cost effective overall to privatize the state’s information systems management function. Even if

you have to factor in an additional 20% to oversee the contractors, you still save the state 60%

versus not privatizing. Additionally, the text (Browne & Keeley, 2007) stresses that speakers will

often use a statistic to prove a point that doesn’t support the argument; and, in following suit with

that claim, Mary Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012) gives the statistic that

management only keep their promises 80% of the time; however, this statistic has nothing to do

with the underlying argument to oppose privatization.

What significant information is omitted? (Browne & Keeley, 2007, P. 167-179)

Throughout Mary Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012), specifically in

section 2.0, there are several examples of omitting information to gain the emotion of the reader.

Browne & Keeley (2007) tell us to ask the question: “Does the author’s career depend in some

manner on a particular conclusion” (p. 171)? In Mary Ford’s case it is most certainly true that the

conclusion has severe long-term ramifications on her career, because if Hector Fuentes sides

with the governor then Mary and her colleagues will be out of a job. Henceforth, it is in the

interest of Mary and those she represents to persuade Hector Fuentes to oppose the notion to

privatize their information systems functions.


Examples of omitted information from Mary Ford’s email of information:

“It is anti-American. (personal communication, January 30, 2012).

o How so? Anti-American how?

o Are we to assume the governor has an ulterior ultimatum that discriminates

against United States citizens?

“Foreign agents will bid for this privatization contract and accept wages lower than our

members receive” (personal communication, January 30, 2012).

o Are we to believe that local or American contractors will be excluded from

bidding or that competition will not be fair?

o Are the current employees overpaid?

“Outsourcing is the cause of the current recession” (personal communication, January 30,

2012).

o Says who?

The state will lose control of information systems and data will be compromised.

What reasonable conclusions are possible? (Browne & Keeley, 2007, P. 181-192)

Browne & Keeley (2007) tell us that when adopting a conclusion it is necessary to ensure it

aligns with your own values and preferences. They also make mention that it is important to

identify alternate conclusions to ensure the proper conclusion is adopted by the reader. In case of

Mary Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012), there are really only two

reasonable conclusions, to vote for or against the governor’s notification of intent to privatize the

information systems management function for the DMV. Although Browne & Keeley (2007)

insist that my aforementioned logical conclusions are a form of dichotomous thinking, in that I


am only seeing a black or white, yes or no, answer. Hector Fuentes’s conclusion from Mary

Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012) will have to be based on the evidence

Mary provides in her email. However, in my opinion the underlying conclusion is a request from

Mary to protect her employees’ jobs and in return they (Mary Ford’s employees) will ensure

Hector stays in office as president of their union.

Conclusion

Walking in Hector Fuentes shoes yields a bit of groundwork left before he can make a formal

response to the governor that adequately represents the view of APEU Local No. 121. As a state

employee and good steward of the taxpayer’s money his value chain should be in accordance

with reducing waste and getting the best “bang for the buck.” In doing that he will need a fact

based, impartial, and apples to apples comparison performed by persons without something to

lose irrespective of the final conclusion. Hector will not get that level of analysis from Mary

Ford’s email (personal communication, January 30, 2012), although throughout her rant she does

bring up very valid points. Unfortunately those points are not properly supported and may be

misrepresented by skewed statistics and personal feelings getting in the way of clear thinking.

What was most interesting about writing this paper was that I felt Hector Fuentes asked Mary

Ford to perform “Critical Thinking” on the topic of whether or not to privatize. As it turns out

the assignment ended up being more of a grading of Mary Ford’s application of critical thinking

and identify how her email can be improved by applying Browne & Keeley’s (2007) Critical

Thinking model. If Mary Ford were fortunate enough to have taken this class, her email would

have likely been much more influential and Hector Fuentes would have been given clear,


concise, factual data that he could have used to draft an appropriate response to Governor Gloria

Gainor.

References:

Browne, M.N., & Keeley, S.M. (2007) Asking the Right Questions 8th edition Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Browne, Neil M. (2013) OCLC WorldCat Identities. Retrieved from

http://orlabs.oclc.org/identities/lccn-n82-33398/

Keeley, Stuart M. (2013) OCLC WorldCat Identities. Retrieved from




critical thinking and decision making

Documents

accept wages lower

mary fords email

oclc worldcat identities

government outsourcing contract

mary fords

critical thinking

maryfords email

mary ford