University of Maryland University College
DMBA 610 / Section 9045 / Individual Research Paper 1
This paper, examination, report, or the section thereof for which I have indicated responsibility, is my own work. Any assistance I received in its preparation is acknowledged within the report or examination, in accordance with academic practice. For any data, ideas, words, diagrams, pictures, or other information from any source, quoted or not, I have cited the sources fully and completely in footnotes and bibliographical entries, as required. Furthermore, I certify that the material was prepared by me specifically for this class and has not been submitted, in whole or significant part, to any other class in this university or elsewhere, or used for any purpose other than satisfying the requirements of this class, except that I am allowed to submit this material to a professional publication, peer reviewed journal, or professional conference. In adding my name following the word 'Signature', I intend that this certification will have the same authority and authenticity as a document executed with my hand-written signature."
SignatureAbrahem HelalDateFebruary 17, 2013
Table of Contents
Step 1: What are the issue and conclusions?3
Step 2: What are the reasons?4
Step 3: What words or phrases are ambiguous?5
Step 4: What are the value and descriptive assumptions and conflicts?7
Step 5: Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?8
Step 6: How good is the evidence?9
Step 7: Are there any rival causes?10
Step 8: Are the statistics deceptive?11
Step 9: What significant information has been omitted?12
Step 10: What reasonable conclusions are possible?13
The purpose of this paper is to apply each of the steps of the critical thinking model developed by (Browne & Keeley, 2012) to assess the arguments presented in a memo prepared by Ms. Mary Ford (personal communication, January 30, 2012), hereafter referred to as “the memo”, who is the Director of the Amalgamated Public Employees Union (APEU) Local No. 121 to Mr. Hector Fuentes, the President of APEU Local No. 121, contesting a memo drafted by New Mexico Governor Gloria Gainor (personal communication, October 20, 2011) informing the APEU Local No. 121 of the intent to outsource and privatize the New Mexico Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) information systems management function. Step 1: What are the issue and conclusions?
(Browne & Keeley, 2012, Chapter 2)
Issue:In the memo the issue described is of a prescriptive nature. It is one that is “ethical or moral in nature and raises questions about what is right and wrong, desirable or undesirable, good or bad” (Browne & Keeley, 2012, p. 20). Specifically the issue is should Governor Gainor proceed with the proposed outsourcing and privatization of the New Mexico DMV information systems management function which would potentially adversely affect state employees, 43 of whom are members of APEU Local No. 121. Conclusion:In the memo Ms. Ford concludes that the APEU Local No. 121 should rebut the Governor’s proposed privatization of the DMV information systems management function “as an unfair management practice” that will lead to APEU members losing their jobs in a manner which “violates the principles of the Pendleton Act of 1883 “which stipulates that government jobs be awarded on the basis of merit and made it illegal to arbitrarily and capriciously fire or demote government employees” (Milestone Documents, n.d.) Step 2: What are the reasons?
(Browne & Keeley, 2012, Chapter 3)
According to Browne & Keeley, “the worth of a conclusion cannot be determined until the reasons behind the opinion are identified. Reasons are explanations or rationales for why a conclusion should be believed” (Browne & Keeley, 2012, pp. 29-30). In the memo Ms. Ford...