CRITICAL THINKING EXERCISE
University of Maryland University College

Introduction:
In the book, “Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Eleventh Edition), by M. Neil Brown and Stuart M. Keeley”, the authors examine the benefits of critical thinking as it relates to the process of asking the right kinds of questions. The authors state that critical thinking is a method used to improve the way we think by asking the questions that would enable you to reach a personal decision that would eventually give credit to both sides of a discussion. Critical thinking is, in essence, the analysis, synthesis and evaluation of one’s experience, as it relates to the worth of the discussion at hand. The authors define critical thinking as, “the awareness of a set of interrelated critical questions, the ability to ask and answer critical questions in an appropriate manner; and the desire to actively use the critical questions” (p. 4). This paper will evaluate the nature of critical thinking as an intellectual process and apply that to the memorandum date October 10, 2012 to Cynthia Castle from Anil Ravaswami to determine if the issue stated of whether the CEO of the company, Cliffside Holding Company of Massapequa (CHCM) should invest $100,000 per year in leadership training program for junior insurance executives. Browne and Keeley (2010) make it clear that a critical evaluation cannot be done until the conclusion is found and instructs the critical thinker to find this by asking “What is the writer or speaker trying to prove”, and defines a conclusion as “inferred”, that is, derived from reasoning (p.26).

DISCUSSION
The 10 steps of the critical thinking model as discussed by Brown and Keeley (2010) include the following:
1. “What are the issues and the conclusions?
2. What are the reasons?
3. What words or phrases are ambiguous?
4. What are the value and descriptive assumptions?
5. Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
6. How good is the evidence?
7. Are there rival causes?
8. Are the statistics deceptive?
9. What significant information is omitted?
10. What reasonable conclusions are possible?”
What Are the Issue and the Conclusion?
The issue that Mr. Ravaswami is presenting is whether or not the leadership development training program suggested by Ms. Forsythe is necessary for employees within his company, CHCM. As the Vice President of Human Resources, he is addressing this issue to the CEO, Ms. Castle, due to a recommendation from the Director of Operations, Ms. Forsythe. The conclusion is stated very frankly several times by Mr. Ravaswami. He believes and argues that the training is not necessary for junior executives for the organization and, in fact, that the training, “will be a waste of money.”
What are the Reasons?
There are several reasons discussed by Mr. Ravaswami in his memo that support his conclusion. According to Browne and Keeley, reasons are pieces of evidence that help you to evaluate the worth of a conclusion so these must be examined carefully as a critical thinker. The main reason presented is that the company should recruit leaders instead of developing them. Mr. Ravaswami does not believe it is the company’s responsibility to fund leadership training because he states that leadership characteristics are innate. He illustrates his strong stance that recruitment is far more important by quoting in the memo, “There are plenty of people who are already leaders; we don’t need to “train” those who are not.” Mr. Ravaswami includes many traits and characteristics that are inherent among leaders and even lists several leaders that share these traits.
Similarly, another reason is the financial burden that CHCM cannot afford. Mr. Ravaswami cites that it will cost the company $100,000 a year (plus time lost by missing work) and that by spending this money, they would not have enough money for recruitment costs, which are a higher priority to the organization. This may be the most important reason he has given from the perspective of the CEO, although the validity of this is questionable.
A final reason to support Mr. Ravaswami’s conclusion is that the company has been “prosperous, successful and effective” without leadership training for fifty years so it does not need the training. They have managed a 12% annual growth rate on average despite their lack of leadership training and their senior executives have not attended any leadership seminars.
What Words or Phrases Are Ambiguous?
One can find several ambiguous terms within the memo that leave Mr. Ravaswami’s logic open to interpretation. Presuming that the meaning of words are obvious within his writing can confuse readers because “most words have more than one meaning” (Browne & Keeley, 2012). For example Mr. Ravaswami’s measures of his company’s “success” and “prosperity” may differ from how the CEO or others measure the results. Success can be based on sales, profit, growth, innovation, and many other things. What kind is Mr. Ravaswami referring to specifically? He assumes that everyone has a collectively similar definition and view of this word and that there is no room for improvement. He also uses the word “effective” which is extremely broad. What are the leaders effective at? Driving higher revenue, meeting company goals or managing employees? Do the people working under these leaders agree with their alleged effectiveness?

Another important ambiguous term that I must point out is “leader” which is thrown around generously in the memo. A leader means many different things to each of us. He uses a definition of “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others” for leadership however to some it is much more than that. There are endless definitions and perceptions of this word. As stated on page 46 of “Asking the Right Questions,” a definition such as this may not “adequately define the use of a term”. Leadership theories and definitions have been long debated by psychologists, philosophers and managers. Throwing the term around loosely can mislead people even with the given definition. Being more specific in all these instances may help to clarify and strengthen Mr. Ravaswami’s argument.
What Are the Value and Descriptive Assumptions?
The book lists assumptions as anything they may be “hidden or unstated, taken for granted, influential in determining the conclusion and potentially deceptive” and due to this, it’s very apparent that Mr. Ravaswami used several in his memo. Due to his position in leadership, is it possible that his view about the topic is biased based on his own personal experience? Do others also view leadership as being something innate and impossible to learn? Many people, including leaders, would argue that leadership is learned from a combination of experience and training. Other assumptions made are related to the cost of this leadership training being effective or beneficial to the company. Has Mr. Ravaswami considered that the development program may drive even better results from current and future leaders to offset the costs? Mr. Ravaswami has a clear preference and distinct priorities in his assumptions. Another revealing assumption is that Ms. Forsythe, who proposed the training that Mr. Ravaswami disagrees with, has ulterior motives. There is no evidence to support the idea that she is out to get Mr. Ravaswami’s position and is motivated by her own self-interest. He questions whether or not she is “motivated by the liberal notion that all citizens of a free nation have the right to pursue education” which is a completely unrelated topic and obviously an assumption about her character and beliefs. He has presented no explanation of Ms. Forsythe attempting to discredit him yet accuses her of this freely. Thus it is clear he merely uses assumptions in reference to his colleague.
Are There Any Fallacies in the Reasoning?
There are a number of fallacies in this memo, as described by Browne and Keeley in this step of critical analysis. The most obvious and extreme of which is the Ad Hominem Fallacy towards the end of the memo when Mr. Ravaswami begins to deliberately attack Ms. Forsythe while questioning her intentions. He suggests she may be after his job and secretly endorsing the Aspen Institute, which she had recommended to conduct the training program for the company. This illustrates the Straw Person Fallacy also, as he is “distorting his opponent’s point of view” in order to attack her. The Glittering Generality Fallacy was also exhibited by diverting the reader to other issues, such as political values, when he proposes that Ms. Forsythe is an extreme liberal. These three fallacies were the most notable and clear to me as a reader with no bias or involvement in the issue.
Another one that may even offend some readers is the Red Herring Fallacy. Mr. Ravaswami goes to great depths to prove a point about the relevance of height in his argument. In reality, this has absolutely nothing to do with being a good leader or with sending employees of this company to a leadership training program. He tries to win his argument by pointing out that many famous leaders are tall and that many executives of the company are tall instead of focusing on his topic to strengthen his reasoning. This is also an example of the Hasty Generalization Fallacy where he draws the conclusion that all efficient leaders are tall based on only a few examples.
Additionally, the Slippery Slope Fallacy was used when he concluded that this training would not help the company develop leaders, would lead to more requests for other exorbitant training and would cause them to not be able to afford recruitment costs. He uses the Appeal to Popularity Fallacy by assuming that listing certain popular leaders and listing their heights will appeal to his audience and convince them. The Either-Or Fallacy is apparent when he does not propose other suggestions to replace Ms. Forsythe’s suggestion, such as sending a smaller amount of employees to the training or trying this training first with only a couple people to see how it works. The overwhelming use of fallacies may actually work against Mr. Ravaswami in the end.
How Good Is the Evidence?
In his memo, Mr. Ravaswami does present certain pieces of evidence to support his case. This includes figures about CHCM such as their growth rate, history and information about executives; as well as a quote by Dr. Jonathan Winters, a Wikipedia definition, a list of leaders and their heights, and references to studies by the Journal of Applied Psychology and in Leadership Quarterly. However upon investigating some of the sources used, the legitimacy is definitely of question. The chart listing heights uses websites such as “Laughter Geneology” and “IMBD” as sources, which are completely unrelated. I am utterly confused about what laughter and movies have to do with the correlation between height and leadership. In addition it is universally agreed that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of credible information either.
Additionally, the survey that he completed on senior staff, in which all but one agreed in his argument, may have been presented with a bias. The senior staff may also fear for junior executives taking their jobs with advanced leadership training so that may have been an influence in their answers, especially if Mr. Ravaswami presented the survey to them as he has presented this memo to the CEO. Most likely he left out critical information that may have influenced their answers otherwise. The reader can presume that most, if not all, of the evidence that Mr. Ravaswami presented is based on his extreme bias. The personal experience he refers to in his argument may not apply to other potential leaders and the general public.
Are There Rival Causes?
Mr. Ravaswami’s memo is of an opinionated nature and not based on a particular event or cause-and-effect incident so the rival causes are not very easy to analyze. However I believe that some of the rival causes stem from his insecurity about his own competence in his job. This would explain his paranoia against Ms. Forsythe and why he would assume she’s out to get him. It may also explain why Mr. Ravaswami is so against developing leaders, unlike most managers of today. Many are concerned with the future of their company and would therefore welcome this idea. In fact, they may insist on leadership training in hopes of bringing out the best in their employees. Also from the perspective of developing leaders and those that may lack leadership skills but excel at other desirable qualities, they may actually offer a lot if trained and developed more thoroughly in these skills and benefit CHCM substantially later on down the road. Part of being successful is respecting differences and realizing that sometimes the most creative and talented people are actually not natural-born leaders, such as Steve Jobs.
I must bring up the height issue again because this is also ground for a rival cause as well. Mr. Ravaswami’s height bias could potentially be viewed as offensive to some since height discrimination unjustly categorizes people based on a physical trait they cannot control. In fact how is he even sure of Ms. Greyson’s height, to whom he is writing to? One might even connect sexism in his plea to relate height to leadership ability. Since women are commonly known to be shorter than men and are rarely over 6 feet tall, is Mr. Ravaswami insinuating that women are incompetent leaders, although this memo is addressed to his female CEO?
Are The Statistics Deceptive?
The statistics given by Mr. Ravaswami in his memo are astoundingly deceptive and misleading. The relationship between height and leadership is extremely inaccurate and warped. There have been many studies done that show that tall people are more likely to be hired into managerial positions (Lindqvist, 2012) and even get more attention and higher earnings (Tan, 2009) but that does not necessarily mean their height is what makes them competent leaders. It simply illustrates that the preference of tall men and women is widely prevalent among society. However there is no proof that height has anything to do with personality, skills or potential. Some of the most powerful people throughout history have been under 6 feet tall. For every tall leader that Ravaswami lists, one can find a shorter leader to match, such as Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey and Warren Buffett. Surely no one can discount their success and leadership, especially due to something as insignificant as their height, in comparison to their accomplishments.
In addition, the statistics about CHCM given in the beginning of the memo may also be distorted. The 12% growth rate could mean many things. What kind of growth? Spending? Sales? Market share? Mr. Ravaswami may have gotten more use out of this statistic if he specified what kind of growth he’s referring to and how it compares to their industry. Additionally he claims that none of the twelve senior executives of the firm have gone to a leadership seminar but how can he know this data for sure? They may have attended leadership training on their own time, read books on the subject or received the training some other way to compensate for not attending seminars. Thus, the numbers he is giving can be viewed as controversial and questionable.
What Significant Information Is Omitted?
There is a lot of omitted information in this particular issue considering the reasons that have been exploited by Mr. Ravaswami. Mainly he excludes the large amount of data that suggests that leadership development program is very fruitful for most companies and contributes to growth. This information is significant because had he included it, it could sway the reader’s decision differently. However because Mr. Ravaswami is more concerned with costs and with people coming after his job, he focuses on negative aspects rather than positive features. He also fails to mention Ms. Forsythe’s reasoning for suggesting this training. Perhaps she has a substantial point about how this leadership program would impact CHCM and can provide a list of companies who have achieved success by utilizing the Aspen Institute’s program.
What Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible?
As Browne and Keeley state, dichotomous thinking is when people think in black and white, yes or no, or right or wrong terms and this eliminates many other possible conclusions or sides to a question. Mr. Ravaswami uses several if-clauses by assuming formal leadership training is not good for his company and its future. He never once includes other possibilities or alternatives. It is quite possible that the training could be beneficial or could offset its own costs eventually, that more affordable training could be found and utilized, that a trial of this training may be worthwhile, and that CHCM has much room for improvement when it comes to leadership if training their employees as much as possible is not a top priority.
Conclusion
After critically examining Mr. Ravaswami’s memo regarding his disapproval of sending employees to a leadership development program, the reader can discover much more than what initially meets the eye. In fact due to his illusive tactics, hostile tone, unjust prejudice and extreme bias; his credibility is almost at question as a result. Had he used the ten steps revealed in “Asking the Right Questions” he may have uncovered this before submitting this memo to his boss and been more successful in persuading his case. This assignment has demonstrated how useful and crucial critical thinking skills are in communicating.

REFERENCES
Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S.M. (2010). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Asking the Right Questions-11 Step Analysis