This week, you will shift your thinking to a project about critical thinking. After you have read through the materials in Project 5, you will encounter a scenario that you are asked to consider. It is intentionally vague, even maddening. You are not asked to write a research paper, but to use your powers of observation, analysis, and consideration of alternative explanations to come to some basic questions: what do you know, by the facts? What don’t you know? What questions should you ask? What alternative conclusions might be drawn from what you read in this scenario? Remember, you will need to consult outside references to support your analysis.
You are welcome to read more about the type of case you are encountering and to use the information you find. However, concentrate on the process of how you receive information, process it, and how you use information to develop analytical conclusions. I was reminded today that we receive and process information rapidly, using heuristics (or cognitive shortcuts) to form impressions, and we make decisions from our conclusions. Many of those decisions are not life-changing, but it is a long game. So, it is important to consider how to improve our abilities to manage information and our analysis of it.
The paper title should be more specific, the readers should know your paper is talking about conflict of interest from its title. For example, “Critical Thinking” as the paper title is not good, it is too general.