Analyze the business document below (scroll down), applying all 8 steps of the critical thinking framework model discussed in the US Army Management Staff College AMSC Critical Thinking report (citing Dr. Richard Paul model) at (The Article is attached) Remember that your task here is to evaluate the author’s argument as objectively as possible, not to give your own opinions on the issue.  Be sure to use the analytical points as set out in the critical thinking report, not your own thoughts on the issue.

The paper should be 7-9 double spaced pages Strict APA Format.  This number does not include the title page or the reference page(s).  All your references should be listed at the end of the paper as required by the strict APA format Use the link  …..      …as a reference and at least 2 other peers reviewed references not longer than 5 years old.  Please be very careful in your papers to use proper grammar, spelling and English language usage.  The citations and the reference list in the paper should be formatted in accordance with the APA guidelines, and be sure to include all references where required.  NOTE:  FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT YOU DO NOT NEED TO INCLUDE AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE PAPER. 

1)     Apply all 8 of the AMSC steps.of the critical thinking model to assess the arguments made in the memo.  Leaving out discussion of steps will adversely affect your grade. You must identify each step in the model and state the following:

a.     Where in the article does the steps 1-8 in the article (The Article is attached). For example;

                                                    i.     1) Purpose, Goal or End View. State where the purpose, goal or end view is in the article.  Provide input if the goal is contradictory to other goals, is it clear precise or is the reasoning used to achieve problematic.

                                                  ii.     At the end of the paper you must identify 3 fallacies in the article. These fallacies are defined in this link

1.     You should point out where they are in the article and why they are fallacies. How could they be made better?

1.    Purpose, Goal, or End in View. Whenever we reason, we reason to some end, to achieve some objective, to satisfy some desire, or fulfill some need. One source of problems in student reasoning is traceable to defects at the level of goal, purpose, or end. If the goal is unrealistic, for example, or contradictory to other goals the student has, if it is confused or muddled in some way, the reasoning used to achieve it is problematic.

2.    The question at Issue or Problem to be Solved. Whenever we attempt to reason something out, there is at least one question at issue, at least one problem to be solved. One area of concern for assessing student reasoning, therefore, will be the formulation of the question to be answered or the problem to be solved, whether with respect to the student’s own reasoning, or to that of others.

3.    (Information) The Empirical Dimension of Reasoning. Whenever we reason, there is some “stuff,” some phenomena about which we are the reasoning. Any “defect” then in the experiences, data, evidence, or raw material upon which a person’s reasoning is based is a possible source of problems.

4.    Inferences. Reasoning proceeds by steps in which we reason as follows: “Because this is so, that also is so (or probably so),” or “Since this, therefore that.” Any “defect” in such inferences is a possible source of problems in our reasoning

5.    The Conceptual Dimension of Reasoning. All reasoning uses some ideas or concepts and not others. These concepts can include the theories, principles, axioms and rules implicit in our reasoning. Any “defect” in the concepts or ideas of the reasoning is a possible source of problems in student reasoning.

6.    Assumptions. All reasoning must begin somewhere, must take some things for granted. Any “defect” in the assumptions or presuppositions with which the reasoning begins is a possible source of problems in student reasoning. Assessing skills of reasoning involves assessing their ability to recognize and articulate their assumptions, again according to the relevant standards. The student’s assumptions may be stated clearly or unclearly; the assumptions may be justifiable or unjustifiable, crucial or extraneous, consistent or contradictory.

7.    Implications and Consequences. No matter where we stop our reasoning, it will always have further implications and consequences. As reasoning develops, statements will logically be entailed by it. Any “defect” in the implications or consequences of our reasoning is a possible source of problems. The ability to reason well is measured in part by an ability to understand and enunciate the implications and consequences of the reasoning. Students, therefore, need help in coming to understand both the relevant standards of reasoning out implications and the degree to which their own reasoning meets those standards.

8.    The point of View or Frame of Reference. Whenever we reason, we must reason within some point of view or frame of reference. Any “defect” in that point of view or frame of reference is a possible source of problems in the reasoning. A point of view may be too narrow, too parochial, may be based on false or misleading analogies or metaphors, may contain contradictions, and so forth. It may be restricted or unfair. Alternatively, student reasoning involving articulation of their point of view may meet the relevant standards to a significant degree: the point of view may be broad, flexible, fair; it may be clearly stated and consistently adhered to.