EXTRA CREDIT POSSIBILITY, #1 Write a critical evaluation of the argument which is presented below, introducing any further arguments

you judge to be relevant. Go through the questions addressed in "Asking the Right Questions" in your evaluation. Be sure to look for values and value assumptions, ambiguity, fallacies, and evidence. Your evaluation should show that you are clear about the structure of the argument (for example, which claims are reasons, conclusions, and assumptions) but no credit will be given for merely paraphrasing the argument. The assignment is worth up to 10 points and based on the same rubric as the critical thinking essay from earlier in the semester. Write a well-argued case in support of your view, approximately 1000 words. The points available will be allocated by examining the content (the quality of your analysis, the use of your critical thinking skills, and construction of your argument) and the writing standards (spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction, etc.) Here is the argument: The film "Free Willy" was a very effective way of highlighting the plight of a captive killer whale (or orca). People were rightly concerned that such creatures should not be kept in captivity, and this concern became reality when over $7,000,000 was raised from the public in order to release the orca star of the film, Keiko, back into the Atlantic. It makes a lovely story, of course. But, just think of it: $7 million to return one animal to the wild. The animal lovers who sent their money could have used it to far greater effect. For example, it could have created a marine reserve in Tanzania to protect the turtles and seabirds, or it could have stopped the decline of the bullfinch in Great Britain. Even if they just wanted to use the money for whales, it could have helped the campaign to restrict (or even stop) commercial whaling. Would those who sent their money for Keiko's release be happy if he swam free but alone in the vastness of the Atlantic? But there are causes beyond that of animal welfare. A very good example is the campaign to save the sight of people in the developing world by funding simple operations. $7 million would have helped thousands of such people. The sentimentality that leads people to spend $7 million on saving a single animal is misplaced. It is obvious that future projects which raise this sort of money should be spent in ways that improve the welfare of as many animals (or people) as possible.

EXTRA CREDIT POSSIBILITY, #2

Review Chapter 14, Asking the Right Questions, as an example of how to approach this. Write a well-argued case in support of your view, approximately 1000 words. The points available (10) will be allocated for the content (the quality of your analysis, the use of your critical thinking skills, and construction of your argument (development & support, organization, focus) and the writing standards (spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction, etc.) Here is the argument: A recent offer by a tobacco company to fund a chair of international relations at a university provoked considerable opposition. Such opposition, however, was unjustifiable. It is accepted by most people that tobacco, being both dangerous and addictive, is responsible for much illness and many deaths worldwide. But cars are probably more dangerous when we look at the deaths, disability, and illness they cause from both accidents and pollution. It could be argued that skis and parachutes are just as dangerous to their users as tobacco is to its. And what about the health problems associated with dairy products like butter? If we are to refuse to have any dealings with tobacco companies, what about companies such as Boeing and General Electric, which make weapons? After all, smokers have a choice as to whether or not to smoke, whereas civilians killed or injured by weapons have no choice over their involvement with the product. Just because a company makes a dangerous product is not a reason to refuse to associate with it. Those who are opposed to the tobacco company's offer have to face the fact that, since tobacco products are legally produced, sold, and bought in this country, the company is doing nothing wrong. Furthermore, by offering to give money to a university, it was doing something beneficial to possibly thousands of people. Those opposed to the offer have an additional problem. Unless they argue that tobacco should not be taxed, they are inconsistent in accepting government money (raised from smoking) to pay for universities, while refusing money directly from the company. What is the difference? Tobacco companies should be treated like any other companies. In consequence, offers of funding from then, like that from any other companies, should always be gratefully accepted.