Sophia Critical Thinking Touchstone 4 Template
Verified Study Solutions
, lOMoAR cPSD| 7670600
Page 1
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Name: Jingyuan Wang
Date: 03/13/2025
Critical Thinking Final Touchstone
In this assignment, you will make two contrasting normative arguments about what one ought
to do. Both arguments will be about the same topic, and so at least one of the arguments is
likely to be something you don't actually agree with. You will compose the arguments in
standard form—that is, as a series of statements that end with your conclusion. Reminder: Do
not write as an essay!
Part I. Select your topic and arguments.
a. Choose a topic from the following list:
● Should people eat meat? ● Should seat belt wearing be
● Should marijuana be legal? mandatory?
● Should pet cats be kept indoors? ● Should children be required to take
● Should zoos exist? gym/PE classes?
● Should customers leave a tip in ● Should public roads be used for
a coffee shop? private car parking?
b. Write two logically contradictory normative conclusions for the topic. You do not need to
agree with both (or either!) conclusions, but you should be able to logically support both
of them.
The conclusions need not be phrased exactly the same as they are phrased in the topic
list, but they do need to be logically contradictory to one another. For example, if you
selected the topic "Should people eat meat?", your conclusions might be:
● People should not eat meat. ● People should eat meat.
But it would also be acceptable to choose:
● People should reduce their meat consumption.
● People need not reduce their meat consumption.
c. These conclusions will be the final line of your argument. If you revise a conclusion after
writing the argument, you should revise the conclusion here to match.
Conclusion #1: Enter your first conclusion here.
Verified Study Solutions
, lOMoAR cPSD| 7670600
Page 1
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Name: Jingyuan Wang
Date: 03/13/2025
Critical Thinking Final Touchstone
In this assignment, you will make two contrasting normative arguments about what one ought
to do. Both arguments will be about the same topic, and so at least one of the arguments is
likely to be something you don't actually agree with. You will compose the arguments in
standard form—that is, as a series of statements that end with your conclusion. Reminder: Do
not write as an essay!
Part I. Select your topic and arguments.
a. Choose a topic from the following list:
● Should people eat meat? ● Should seat belt wearing be
● Should marijuana be legal? mandatory?
● Should pet cats be kept indoors? ● Should children be required to take
● Should zoos exist? gym/PE classes?
● Should customers leave a tip in ● Should public roads be used for
a coffee shop? private car parking?
b. Write two logically contradictory normative conclusions for the topic. You do not need to
agree with both (or either!) conclusions, but you should be able to logically support both
of them.
The conclusions need not be phrased exactly the same as they are phrased in the topic
list, but they do need to be logically contradictory to one another. For example, if you
selected the topic "Should people eat meat?", your conclusions might be:
● People should not eat meat. ● People should eat meat.
But it would also be acceptable to choose:
● People should reduce their meat consumption.
● People need not reduce their meat consumption.
c. These conclusions will be the final line of your argument. If you revise a conclusion after
writing the argument, you should revise the conclusion here to match.
Conclusion #1: Enter your first conclusion here.
