Argument Mapping Exercise: Critical Thinking Assignment

Internal Code: MAS1129

Critical Thinking Assignment:

Question: This letter to the editor piece has a strong argument as the writer is exclaiming how frustrated they are over the treatment of refugees, and how both Labor and Liberal parties are not conducting any solutions to overcome this. This piece shows accuracy as correct information is being included throughout the letter. The facts about the treatment of refugees in Australia’s borders have been provided, which further emphasises the overall contention of the argument. This would be classified as a deductive argument due to the arguments being valid and sound which guarantees the contention to be identified as true. The premises that are evident in the argument map show that the premises are accurate. The letter further shows precision when the author presents the arguments with specific information about the unfair treatment of Asylum seekers. With facts such as refugees are “denied the possibility of permanent protection and, often, the right to work” as well as“some have lost their lives, may have lost their sanity, and some are suffering assaults”, we are being provided with specific information that further highlights the contention and continues to show that the premises are correct facts. The premises that have been provided in the argument map below support the writers overall contention shows logic. It follows this universal intellectual standard as the arguments and facts make perfect sense, as the reasonings and the contention are mutually supported. Logically, all of the premises relate back to the conclusion that Labor and Liberal should be ashamed over the treatment of Refugees seeking to live in Australia. Although this is a short article it still gives us an idea about the depth of the ongoing issue. The information that has been included reflects on the complexity of the atrocities that are occurring towards asylum seekers. The reason behind why this article does have such depth is due to how it addresses the issue and describes actual events that are occurring within this problem which are depicted in the argument map. However, even though this piece overall has a strong argument there is no fairness evident in it.Although the author has described premises that agree with their own personal contention, when they say that they would like a more human approach to be implemented it may not be such a simple task. They are sympathetically presenting their own personal views on the issue but it could have been distorted. Task: You should do the following: 1. (3 points): Produce the map, and post it to the Discussion forum. When posting your map, please create a new thread rather than replying to an existing thread. You should also reproduce the original text of the argument in your Discussion forum post, or provide a hyperlink to it. 2. (5 points): Evaluate whether the argument is strong or weak, and explain your reasoning. You should refer to up to five of Paul and Elder's standards for this purpose. You should write approximately a paragraph on each standard. 3. (2 points): Finally, you should provide another student with critical feedback about their argument map in the comments. Please try to find someone who has not yet received feedback (if this is impossible, you may provide feedback to someone who has already received it.). This should be 1-2 paragraphs long.