This paper applies a structured critical thinking framework — drawn from Browne and Keeley's Asking the Right Questions — to analyze a memorandum written by Ms. Barbara Glenn opposing the proposed privatization of a state Department of Transportation (DoT) information management system. The analysis identifies the memo's central issue and conclusion, evaluates its reasons, flags ambiguous language, uncovers value conflicts and descriptive assumptions, catalogs reasoning fallacies, assesses the quality of evidence, identifies rival causes, examines deceptive statistics, notes significant omissions, and proposes reasonable alternative conclusions. The paper finds that while the memo raises legitimate concerns about worker job security, its argument is weakened by logical fallacies, unsourced statistics, and a failure to engage directly with the governor's proposal.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
The paper demonstrates applied critical analysis using a structured interrogative framework. Rather than simply summarizing the memo's arguments, the author tests each claim against standards of logic, evidence quality, and inferential validity — a technique central to formal critical thinking courses. This approach transforms a policy document into an object of philosophical scrutiny.
The paper is organized into ten numbered analytical questions, each addressing a distinct dimension of argument evaluation: issue identification, reason enumeration, semantic ambiguity, value conflicts, descriptive assumptions, reasoning fallacies, evidence quality, rival causes, statistical reliability, omitted information, and alternative conclusions. This structure mirrors the chapter organization of Browne and Keeley's textbook, making it an ideal model for applied critical thinking assignments at the undergraduate level.
The memorandum from Ms. Barbara Glenn intends to provide guidance on a pending decision to either support or reject the proposed privatization of the Department of Transportation (DoT) information management system. It addresses the question of what ought to be done with Governor Sally Bernstein's proposal to privatize the DoT's information management system. Ms. Glenn recommends opposition to the proposed action. Based on the author's assertions, it can be inferred that the governor's decision to outsource a service currently performed by 75 state employees — more than half of whom are members of the Federated State Employees Union (FSEU) Local 343 — is a threat to the union and its members' job security, and should therefore be opposed and rejected.
This conclusion is based on the following reasons:
1. That the move is an assault on the FSEU.
2. That privatization of the DoT's information management system is anti-American.
3. That privatization of the system will serve as a precursor to the lowering of wages, not only in the privatized branch of the department, but also as a matter of subsequent state policy.
4. That displaced workers will be forced to learn new skills or adjust to a new working environment in the event that they are re-hired.
5. That the proposal is a violation of the Pendleton Act of 1883, which stipulates that the hiring and firing of workers must be based on merit.
6. That agreeing to the proposal would mean a loss of bargaining power for the union in future negotiations with the state.
7. That privatization is bad because of: (a) loss of state control over the information system and data; (b) profit as the sole objective of the private sector, which will create instability since decisions to pursue or terminate the contract will be based solely on profitability, regardless of who is affected; (c) additional hidden costs for the state in overseeing a third-party contractor; (d) outsourcing as a cause of recession; and (e) communications and culture clash problems resulting from outsourcing.
The subsequent sections further analyze the reasons and other assertions in the document to determine whether they provide a strong basis for the conclusion.
a. "This proposed privatization is an assault on our union."
This statement exposes an adversarial stance but does not explain how the proposal constitutes an attack on the union. It can be interpreted in two ways: as an attack against the union itself as an organized entity, or as an attack on the welfare of individual union members. The first interpretation suggests the dissolution of the union as a result of privatization; the second implies that privatization may result in the dismissal of union members because of their association with the union.
b. "It is anti-American."
The term "anti-American" is undefined and carries loaded emotional language that does not provide strong objective justification for the conclusion. Anti-Americanism is a far more complex phenomenon. According to Hollander (2002), "anti-Americanism is not easy to study given its diffuseness, varieties, endless sources, and the difficulty in locating it on the spectrum of political attitudes and positions." Likewise, anti-Americanism scholar Brendan O'Connor asserts that "anti-Americanism is not a comprehensive or coherent belief system or ideology, but rather a series of criticisms and prejudices regarding America that have haphazardly been labeled anti-Americanism." How exactly can the proposed action be anti-American? The statement also begs the question of what is considered pro-American or anti-American. Does provision of service by a foreign entity or the private sector demonstrate anti-Americanism? Simplifying the term does not provide a solid, verifiable explanation to justify the conclusion.
c. "Foreign agents will bid for this privatization contract…"
Who are these "foreign agents"? Does this mean individuals from outside the United States? Or actors who are within the U.S. but are considered foreign because they do not belong to the public sector? Does the term refer to citizenship, nationality, or ethnicity? One might consider, for instance, an ethnic Chinese person who was born and raised in the U.S. and holds U.S. citizenship. Ethnically, one might label such a person a foreigner, yet legally he or she is an American by virtue of citizenship.
d. "…we do a disservice to our members…"
How can the proposed privatization be a disservice to union members? The term can be construed in different ways. It assumes that all union members reject the proposal — so that agreeing to it would mean bypassing their position, thus resulting in a disservice to them. Another interpretation is that agreeing to the contract would put union members at a disadvantage through loss of jobs, slashed benefits, or retrenchment, among other outcomes that could be considered a disservice.
e. "I speak for truth and common sense…"
What is "truth"? What is "common sense"? Who defines these terms, and for whom does the author claim to speak?
f. "We have to be strong and show no weakness."
Strength and weakness are contextual. How is union strength or weakness defined in the context of privatization? As Browne and Keeley (2010, p. 52) note, "multiple meanings can create serious problems in determining the worth of an argument."
Two major assumptions underlie the recommendation to reject the proposal. First, it is presupposed that employees' job security — particularly that of union members — is more important than the cost savings the state would achieve and the potentially more efficient service the private sector could deliver. Second, it is assumed that the state is a better provider of service than the private sector.
These assumptions expose value conflicts between the protection of American interests (represented here by union members' stakes) and the opportunity for the private sector to provide "state-of-the-art information systems hardware, software, and professional expertise." There is also a value conflict between job security and service efficiency. A reader who believes that service efficiency and state savings are more important than retaining a service that draws on government funds — funds that could be redirected to social services such as education and health — would likely disagree with the memorandum's conclusion. There is further conflict between retaining the existing skills of current workers and the possibility of upgrading the workforce's capabilities through a private-sector takeover. Statements such as "[I]f you opposed this measure, they would vote for you" also reveal a contradiction between exercising objective judgment and relying on emotion and political ambition to influence a decision.
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.