Week 5 Final Project

 Argumentative Essay

In the Week 3 Assignment, you engaged in a case analysis of a current business problem using some of the components of an argumentative essay. In this written assignment, you will write a complete argumentative essay as described in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Foster, Hardy, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). This essay will include a revised and polished version of your Week 3 Assignment, an objection to your thesis, a rebuttal, and concluding remarks. In order to benefit the most, you should start working on your Final Project from the time you receive your Week 3 Assignment back with comments from your professor.

Your assignment should include the following:
A revision of your Week 3 Case Analysis Assignment. Your revision should represent a substantial edit of your work that fully incorporates feedback from your professor and goes well beyond correcting any grammatical or APA errors.

The strongest possible objection to your thesis. After the final paragraph of your Week 3 Case Analysis Assignment, start a new paragraph that introduces the strongest possible objection to your thesis. The considerations for this are detailed in Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). Make sure to employ the appropriate language to introduce the objection, such as “some may object to my thesis as follows” or “according to [so and so] the thesis presented here fails to account for X” [whatever he or she finds problematic]. You can find other language to do this, of course, but the key point here is to make sure that you indicate that someone else is speaking when presenting this objection.

It is also important to remember that you do research to discover good objections and not merely objections that are weak and thus easily rebutted. Look for peer-reviewed journal articles in the Ashford University Library, full-text articles in Google Scholar, or articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Present the opposing position fairly and in detail. This may take more than one paragraph.

A rebuttal. This is a refutation of the objection that you have just presented. Start this in a new paragraph following the objection paragraph(s). Once again, follow the indications of Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). You may point out an error in the objection. Or you may show that, while it is an important objection, it does not apply squarely to your argument, or does not account for facts that make it irrelevant. Above all, make sure to maintain philosophical decorum in your rebuttal. Toward this end, you should apply the principles of charity and of accuracy, first introduced in the Week 1 course material. See “Confronting Disagreement” in Section 9.4 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015).

Closing remarks. End your argumentative essay with a paragraph of closing remarks. Provide some reflections of what you have attempted to achieve by means of your essay. You could, for example, explain how your essay sheds light on the broader controversy that it addresses. Or you could point out how your essay addresses a frequently ignored point or the unpopular side in the controversy. You could also reflect on the related matters in the broader controversy that would be useful to examine by others. Do not merely summarize what you have done in the body of your essay, and do not add new information here that would support or contradict your essay since the body of your essay should have addressed all the relevant points. See “Closing Your Essay” in Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo (2015).

Requirements for your Assignment:

Your assignment should be between 1500 to 1700 words in length, excluding the cover and references pages.

Your examination should be both thorough and succinct. This is a combination that demands time and thought, so give yourself sufficient time to draft and revise.

Your assignment should include citations, as well as a list of references. Both must be in APA form.

Your references should include at least four peer-reviewed articles in addition to those that you will be carrying over from our Week 3 Case Analysis Assignment. These references should be drawn from the Ashford University Library, Google Scholar, or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Fieser, J. (2015). Introduction to business ethics [Electronic version]. Retrieved from

Chapter 5: Discrimination in the Workplace

Chapter 6: Employees

Ashford Course Materials

Hardy, J, Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). Section 9.1: The Argumentative Essay. In With good reason: A guide to critical thinking. Retrieved from

Section 9.1: The Argumentative Essay is a section of Chapter 9 of the introductory course in logic textbook that is employed in the PHI103 Informal Logic course offered at Ashford University. The link for this source will take you to a PDF format of this chapter. Section 9.1 introduces the thesis and premises in an argumentative essay, which are elements that students in this course must employ in both assignments in this course.

Hardy, J, Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). Section 9.2: Strengthening the Argumentative Essay. In With good reason: A guide to critical thinking. 

Section 9.2: Strengthening the Argumentative Essay is a section of Chapter 9 of the introductory course in logic textbook that is employed in the PHI103 Informal Logic course offered at Ashford University. The link for this source will take you to a PDF format of this chapter. For the purposes of the work for this week, it will be necessary to read only thesubsection called Clarification and Support. This subsection explains the kind of support needed in an argumentative essay for the claims offered in its premises, which students in this course must know in order to apply in discussions and both assignments.

Hardy, J, Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). Section 9.4: Confronting Disagreement. In With good reason: A guide to critical thinking. Retrieved from

Section 9.4: Confronting Disagreement is a section of Chapter 9 of the introductory course in logic textbook that is employed in the PHI103 Informal Logic course offered at Ashford University. The link for this source will take you to a PDF format of this chapter. Section 9.4 covers the philosophical principle of charity, which is a principle that students in this course must employ in their analyses for discussions and assignments.

Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). The moral good in three traditional ethical theories [PowerPoint Slides].

This PowerPoint document covers the main characteristics of utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, and what is the moral good in each of these.

Articles

Collins, C., & Sokolowski, J. (2015, June 12). Supreme Court sides with EEOC in Abercrombie & Fitch hijab case (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. [Blog post]. Retrieved from

This chronicles the Supreme Court’s reversal of judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. 575 U. S. 1 (2015). Retrieved from

This is the Supreme Court’s decision on this case, delivered by Justice Scalia, and it includes the only dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas.

Geller, P. (2015, June 2). Why would a devout Muslim want to work at Abercrombie and Fitch? (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Retrieved from

This article questions the reasons that a Muslim would have to seek employment at a company that has a look policy that would appear to be unsuitable to Muslim values.
Accessibility Statement (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Olson, W. (2015, June 1). EEOC v. Abercrombie: Headscarfs and judicial modesty (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Retrieved from

This article examines the shortcomings and risks of this Supreme Court decision.
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy does not exist.

Religion in the workplace: Bias unveiled (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. (2015, June 3). The Economist. Retrieved from

This article examines the complicated nature of the ruling, which is in sharp contrast with Justice Scalia’s musings that this case was “really easy.”
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Zakrzewski, K. (2005). The prevalence of “look”ism in hiring decisions: How federal law shoud be amended to prevent appearance discrimination in the workplace (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. U. Pa. Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 7(2), 431-461. Retrieved from

This article examines the role of appearance in hiring decisions.

Multimedia

Wall Street Journal. (2015, June 3). Supreme Court rules against Abercrombie & Fitch in head scarf case (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. [Video file]. Retrieved from

This video covers the 8-1 ruling by The Supreme Court. Transcript
Accessibility Statement (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.