Critical Thinking Action Project
Finding fallacies in the prior assignment
In the Introduction the statement was made that because the two offices of ExtraVert are in different locations and have "different objectives" that strategic situation will "create tension and conflict, which detract from the objectives and mission of ExtraVert."
This phrase could raise the question as to the possibility that a "sweeping generalization" (Fullerton.edu) was made. Is it likely that "tension and conflict" are the logical results of having different objectives? It is possible, but a sweeping generalization doesn't assure that tension and conflict are inevitable. Asserting that the tension and conflict will detract from the mission and objectives could be considered a "hasty generalization" (Fullerton.edu) as well. Moreover, stating that solutions can "almost always be arrived at" if understanding, courtesy and thoughtfulness are embraced could be considered "post hoc" (unc.edu). In other words, asserting that because one thing happens (courtesy, et al.) another (a solution) is inevitable can be considered a fallacy.
TWO: In the third paragraph of the original...
Because poor communication apparently exists that's not necessarily an indication that no one is asking questions about it.
THREE: The fourth paragraph asserts that ExtraVert lacks "good corporate governance" because it has poor communication and that it is not protecting the interests of stakeholders. This could be a fallacy known as "faulty sign" (Fullerton.edu); i.e., because one negative event is happening it isn't automatic that another negative impact will follow.
FOUR: Using the term "outrageous" in the sixth paragraph to make a point about a company's apparent failure to share business objectives with its foreign office can be considered "appealing to extremes" (Fullerton.edu). This approach argues for a particular point using an extreme emphasis. Taking another look at the term "outrageous" in this instance it could be considered as a way to "appeal to…
