|
STUDENT RESOURCES : CRITICAL THINKING & WRITING
The arguments we will construct in this section are longer and of more general interest than those in the previous section. The subject matter is provided by editorials that have been clipped from newspapers. These editorials serve as a limited source of facts and as a stimulus to the imagination for writing longer argumentative passages. In working the exercises that appear at the end of this section you should follow this six-step approach: 1. Read the selection at least twice. 2. Underline the most important claims the author makes. 3. Make a list of these claims. 4. Mentally massage these claims, expanding upon them and drawing inferences from them. 5. Evaluate the claims and inferences. 6. Write an argument supporting one of the conclusions posed prior to the selection. The purpose of each editorial selection is to provide a springboard for argumentation. The editorials themselves fall short of being sustained arguments leading to a single conclusion. All of them contain arguments, but those arguments are mixed together with reports, explanations, expository passages and other nonargumentative forms of expression. However, they do provide sufficient information to get you started in writing a fairly long argumentative passage. After reading the editorial selection and making a list of what you consider the most important points, you must think about these points, adding to them from your own deposit of experience and drawing implications from them. Here is where the task of critical reasoning begins. It ends with the evaluation of these claims and inferences. If you agree with the various claims and inferences, you can proceed to the sixth step and begin writing an argumentative passage that supports one of the designated conclusions. But if you disagree, you must make a list of counter claims and counter inferences that support one of the other designated conclusions. Here is a sample exercise: Read the following selection, and then write an argument that supports one of these conclusions: (1) The conduct of modern business will improve if more high level jobs are given to women. (2) The conduct of modern business will not improve if more high level jobs are given to women. Perspective on the Work Force: Why Should Women Be Like Men? by George Tunick While Census figures released last Friday indicate that the number of women in management jobs rose 95% between 1980 and 1990, men still dominate. Most evidence shows that women are still disproportionately in the lowest tiers of management and in the lowest-paying industries. I first noticed that girls were different from boys when I was about 4 years old. No experiences either in my personal life or in my business life have caused me to change my opinion. Throughout my adult life, however, I have had to evaluate again and again these gender differences and how they affect the way men and women relate to one another and to the environment in which they work. Working almost exclusively with women has given me insight I would never have gained in any other way. Women are working at a decided disadvantage in the business worldž still working in an environment created by men to make things comfortable for men. To me, this means men often understand the rules without having to be taught or even having to think about them. It is not so easy for women. If I may fall back on typically male sports terminology, women have had to learn both the game and the game plan at the same time. Foremost in the different set of rules women seem to follow, at least in my own observation, is that women in business tend to be more honest than men. A direct question to a woman often results in a direct, frank response. This quality makes it more difficult for women to "yes" an employer. It also makes women more trustworthy than the men who often can't, or won't, give a straight answer to a question. Women are also more open than men about their feelings, their ambitions, and everyday situations in the office. This makes them more vulnerable than men, who tend to play the corporate game very close to the vest. Traditionally, women in business have been more harshly judged than men. They have had to be better in a job than a man to get ahead. In my own observation, women are often more thorough and more detail-oriented than men are. However, while people with tenacious attention to detail are very competent in particular positions, they often fail to develop a broad overview. The successful business executive must see how each cog fits in the wheel and in which direction the wheel should be turning. I think men sometimes have an easier time with this than women because men have been taught to believe they would eventually become "big wheels." While many younger women in the work force have had this advantage, the majority of women working today have not. Another difference between working men and women is that men take more chances; men are more willing to gamble. Men are trained to be competitive and enjoy a real dog-eat-dog battle. Some women are, too; most aren't. Men also shoot from the hip more. Our male employers have taught us that we can do this, and even be off the mark, without great penalty. Women are often taught just the oppositež again, by male employers. Women seem to be, as a result, more thoughtful, more cautious, more prudent. For example, I have interviewed more than a dozen people for the job of advertising salesperson. Most of the candidates were women and, without exception, they wanted a substantial salary and a small commission. The men I saw, also without exception, wanted a substantial commission and a small salary. Women also seem more comfortable in staff jobs than line jobs, perhaps because they know that the price they will have to pay when they make a mistake is greater than the price men pay. Of all the differences between men and women that I have noticed, one in particular stands out. I have never heard any man talk about fulfillment in a career. When I began working with women, I was quite surprised to hear the word used, and frequently. I think women have the right idea. Fulfillment should be a part of what both women and men expect from their professional experience. It seems to me a healthier, more sensible way to approach a career. From listening to women, I have learned that they see traditional "male" business rules as not very nicež even dishonest. I agree with them. As women continue to rise in the work force, they will continue to positively influence and change the way business is conducted. That change will be better for both women and men.
Following the six-step approach outlined earlier, we begin by reading the selection twice and underlining the most important claims. Then we make a list of these claims: Men and women operate according to different sets of rules. Men know the rules of business without being taught. Women have to be taught the rules of business. Women tend to be more honest than men. Women give more direct, frank answers to questions than men. Women are less likely to "yes" an employer than men are. Women are more trustworthy than men. Women are more open about their feelings and ambitions than men. Women are more vulnerable than men. Women are more thorough and more detail-oriented than men. Men are better in developing broad overviews than women. Men are more willing to take chances and to gamble than women. Men tend more often to shoot from the hip than women. Men are more competitive than women. Women are more thoughtful, cautious, and prudent than men. Women are more concerned with finding fulfillment than men. The fourth step is to mentally "massage" these claims. What do they amount to? What do they entail? How do they have a bearing on the conduct of business? Is there anything we can add to them? Well, if women are more honest than men, they are probably less interested in playing games, and this would suggest greater efficiency and less time wasted on posturing and pointless maneuvering. And if women tend to give more direct answers, their supervisors will be more likely to get the straight story and therefore less likely to adopt misdirected or futile courses of action. If women are more open about their feelings, they are probably less likely to grumble under their breath about such things as work conditions, and this may lead to improved conditions and greater efficiency. However, if women are more vulnerable than men, they may lack the toughness needed for business, and they may therefore be less effective in conducting business transactions. Also, if they are less competitive than men, companies led by women may succumb in a market dominated by male-led companies. However, if women can work effectively with men, their vulnerability and diminished competitiveness may subside with time. Also, if these features result from the need to adapt to a set of rules produced by men, the rules themselves may change as women become more prominent in the world of business. If women are more detail-oriented than men, their work will contain fewer "glitches," and as a result, projects and programs developed by women should run more smoothly. However, if men are better at developing broad overviews than women, women will be less effective than men in long range planning. Also, if men are more willing to take chances than women, and if success in business involves taking chances, then perhaps men should be given a free rein here. However, shooting from the hip often produces stray shots, so assigning part of the risk-taking role to women, who are more cautious and prudent, may save money in the end. Finally, if women are more concerned about career fulfillment than men, they will probably seek and achieve this goal to a greater extent than men. Employees who find fulfillment in their work tend to be more stable and less interested in changing jobs than those who find no such fulfillment. Also, women in a managerial capacity should be more concerned that those under their supervision find such fulfillment. Thus, a work force in which women play a prominent role should be less troubled by job turnover and should run up fewer bills for hiring and training. After mulling these points over in our minds we see that they suggest a business climate in which men and women play more equal roles, share equally in developing the rules of the game, and supplement one another's shortcomings. Men and women each have unique strengths, and their playing more equal roles would restore balance to a climate that has been tilted in favor of male values and male points of view. The fifth step is to evaluate these claims and inferences. Are the claims true? Do the inferences make sense? If your answer is "no," you should proceed to develop a list of counter claims and counter inferences: "Women are no more honest than men, and therefore their increased prominence in business will have no positive effect." Or perhaps, "Women are more honest than men, but honesty has no rightful place in business, so women should stay out of top level management." Or, "Women tend to shoot from the hip just as often as men do, so their taking charge of a business organization will save no money." Here is where critical reasoning comes to the fore. However, let us assume for the sake of simplicity that we agree with our list of claims and the reasonableness of the inferences. We can then proceed to the sixth step: We select the first conclusion given at the beginning of the exercise, and we write an argumentative passage that supports it. A little organization yields the following: The conduct of modern business will improve if more high-level jobs are given to women. The principal reason is that men and women each have their own unique strengths and abilities, and if those strengths and abilities are allowed to supplement and reinforce one another, any affected business organization will become more efficient and will run more smoothly. For example, women appear to be more detail-oriented than men, while men appear to be better at developing broad overviews. Broad overviews are necessary for long range planning, but an attention to detail means that those plans will be more free of "glitches," so their implementation will proceed more smoothly. If men and women work together on long range planning, the result will be improved products and services delivered at a reduced cost. Again, women appear to be more cautious and more prudent than men, while men are more inclined to take chances. Success in business requires taking chances, but men are inclined to shoot from the hip, while women are not. Shooting from the hip often produces stray shots, and stray shots mean lost profits. If women and men work together on deciding what chances to take, a greater number of shots will reach their target. Another reason women should be given high-level jobs in management is because they will then be in a position to reshape the rules of the game. The present rules lack balance because they were set up by men, who have run big business from the time of its inception, and who ignored the values, behavioral patterns and points of view they associated with women. If women's values and perspectives are allowed to influence the way we conduct business, not only will profit margins increase, but the overall business climate will be richer and more satisfying to all its participants. For example, women tend to be more open about their feelings than men. As women become supervisors themselves, they will expect greater openness from their subordinates. Everyone in the organization will be encouraged to come forward with their views, whether they be about unsatisfactory work conditions or any other matter that bothers them. This increased openness will lead to improved work conditions and greater efficiency overall. Also, women tend to be more honest and direct in their answers to superiors. It is therefore to be expected that women supervisors will encourage their subordinates to be more honest and direct. Conversely, when those supervisors receive a straight story from their subordinates, they will be less likely to adopt futile or ill conceived courses of action in response. Finally, women tend to be more concerned about career fulfillment than men. As supervisors, women will be more concerned that their subordinates find fulfillment in their jobs. The resulting work force will be more stable and less interested in moving on to greener pastures. Absenteeism will lessen, fewer employees will quit for better jobs, and less money will be spent hiring and training their replacements. All of this will lead to increased profits for the business organization and a more satisfying business climate. This argumentative passage is about 500 words in length, and it does
not even mention some of the points that were outlined prior to writing
it. Most of the points mentioned could be elaborated further and reinforced
by additional arguments, yielding a passage of at least 1000 words.
|