Critical Thinking Physical Education

Question: Discuss about the Critical Thinking for Physical Education. Answer: In most arguments, there are sets of one or more premises that are accompanied by a conclusion. In some other arguments, such as the complex arguments, there are sets of several simple arguments which are having overlapping premises as well as conclusions. The otherwise called complex arguments are quite popular considering that most of the debates and issues are complicated in one way or the other and they entail comprehensive reasoning. To be able to properly comprehend arguments, one requires being able to analyze the logical sequence as well as structure of the reasoning as entailed in an argument (Nosich, 2012; Pinker, 2013). Drawing argument diagrams assists in bringing out or rather analyzing the logical structure of an argument for better comprehension. The following is a numbered structure for the provided text: (1) The demand for organ transplant has grown steeply over time and across the globe. However, (2) Growth in the supply of donated organs has been modest, at best; this suggests that (3) Current policies that encourage organ donation by appealing to the altruistic instincts of individuals is failing. Thus, as a result of the growth in demand, the ineffectiveness of the current regime, and the fact that (4) Nothing can be done to reduce the demand, (5) It is imperative that we consider alternative approaches to increasing organ supply. Since (6) History suggests that the problem of shortages in scarce goods is best solved by creating a free market in those goods, it follows that (7) The purchase and sale of organs should be legalized. The following is the argument diagram drawn from the listed structure: From the above diagram, (7) is the conclusion whereas (6) and (4) are building up from (2). (5) leads to the conclusion whereas (3) shares on the ideas of (4) and (6) before directing them towards the shared conclusion. Assigning letters of alphabet to the simple statement in the argument North Korea can be persuaded to roll back its nuclear program only if America stops conducting military exercises with South Korea. Further, if North Korea cant be persuaded to compromise on its nuclear program, then there will either be continued instability in the Far East or a rebellion might overthrow the regime in North Korea. But, if the Americans fear of China remains strong, then America will not stop these exercises. But, there is good reason to believe that the Americans fear of China will not abate in the near future. In addition, it is highly unlikely that a rebellion will happen in North Korea. So, we are bound to witness continued instability in the Far East. Using the letters assigned, outline the argument in recognizable deductive forms identifying its premises, the conclusion and any other intermediate conclusion that can be validly inferred. The premises in the argument are: A, B, D and E. Premises B, D and E are co-premises as they are all working together in the given argument to support the conclusion. The intermediate conclusion in the simple argument is C. C is concluding the content of premise B though it is not the final conclusion as it only focuses on America and does not include the aspect of a rebellion in North Korea. F is the conclusion in the simple argument as it concludes the argument inclusively, considering both Americas fear of China and North Koreas unlikely rebellion. Evaluating whether the argument is valid The simple argument provided is valid. The argument starts by stating the terms in which an amicable solution can be reached. It acknowledges that the nuclear program of North Korea can be stopped but that is only if America ceases its military exercises in South Korea. The argument then progresses to bring out premises that portray why this solution cannot readily be reached. The conclusion further qualifies the argument as valid as it incorporates the two antagonizing sides of the argument (Groarke and Tindale, 2012). The authors conclusion is actually his individual remark. It states that the prize money for the tennis players ought to be equal irrespective of the events as long as they are at the same level. The author states that the prize money for the women and men at Grand Slam events, Premier Mandatory as well as Masters Events should be equal at all times. Other than this, the author goes ahead to acknowledge that there are other market forces that need to be considered so as to determine accurate economic value of the various events tours especially those that entail both men and women. Looking at the strong and the weak points of the other, it is prudent that the conclusion made by the author be considered. The author obviously made the conclusion from strong points after disqualifying the weak points. The weak points in the article include the argument that owing to the point that the mens tennis is more popular at the moment, it is obvious that they deserve more prize money compared to the women. Drawing from this weak point, the author builds the strongest point to be that there are other sources of income for tennis players and that it is these other sources: endorsement income and appearance fees, which assist in determining which tennis player is more productive for the sport. To support this, the author argues that were the prize money dependant on the economic performance of the tennis players and the given tour, then lesser popular players like Li Na would be earning much more in events in China as it is her who the fans come to watch there. The prize money for the tennis players ought to be equal irrespective of the events as long as they are at the same level. The conclusion by the author is appropriate and I agree with it. The prize money should be equal at the events for both the men and women, highly ranked and lowly ranked players as long as they have all progressed to the same level in the given event. The strong point brought out in the article that backs this, and that which I second, is that the events are held in different parts of the country and definitely there are native players there who are likely to receive and pull more fans to the events than the popular players who are being paid more prize money. A case is Li Na who is a female tennis player from China. During China Opens events, fans troop to the event to cheer her and it is just her whom they want to associate with because they want to give her the home love. In this case, then it is obvious that she deserves to be paid more considering the econom ic impact she brings to the tournament. Owing to this, it is not upright to argue that the prize money should be dependent on the economic performances of players and the tour as a whole considering that it is quite difficult to adjust the prize money in these aspects. The prize money is awarded to the players because they have achieved a given level based performance in the tournament in respect of other competing players. The players are not being paid with respect to the quantity of time they play and this argues against the male players being paid more because the payments are done for having the best plays at the torment and progressing to higher levels of the tournament and this is only achievable by winning the tennis matches. This is similar to the case of the female players; they are paid for winning tennis matches and progressing to the upper levels of the tournament such as the finals. At a given level of the tournament, say the semi finals, the reward for winning a semi final match ought to be same for both the women and the men. At the moment, it is outright that tennis players are earning in regards of their levels f attraction to the tennis public and sponsors. It is not that all men players earn better than their women counterparts, there are men players who are earning lesser compared to the women players. Tennis players currently are being paid in terms of the revenue that they are able to bring into the sport as well as their popularity as these are what favor the sponsors of the sport. References Bowell, T. and Kemp, G., 2014.Critical thinking: A concise guide. Routledge. Foley, J.T., Couturier, L. and Kline, N., 2012. SwitchMaking Change Happen.Journal of Physical Education, Recreation Dance,83(7), pp.1-60. Groarke, L.A. and Tindale, C.W., 2012. Good reasoning matters: A constructive approach to critical thinking. Halpern, D.F., 2014.Critical thinking across the curriculum: A brief edition of thought knowledge. Routledge. Nosich, G.M., 2012. Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the curriculum. Paul, R. and Elder, L., 2013.Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Pearson Education. Pinker, S., 2013.Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT press. Shiraev, E.B. and Levy, D., 2015.Cross-cultural psychology: Critical thinking and contemporary applications. Routledge. Sziarto, K.M., McCarthy, L. and Padilla, N.L., 2014. Teaching critical thinking in world regional geography through stakeholder debate.Journal of Geography in Higher Education,38(4), pp.557-570.