In this assignment, you will complete the Decision Making and Evaluation steps of the Critical Thinking Model for solving ethical problems. Follow the directions below.

1. Review the case study from Module 4

2. Review your Identification and Analysis Assignment, as you will select one of the options you listed as your decision.

3. Decision-Making: Choose the option from your Analysis that you think is the wisest, most ethical option and justify your decision. This should not be an unsupported opinion. Using your analysis and application, as well as consideration of any other evidence from the case, select and defend (explain why) the option you think is most morally right. The more good reasons you have in favor of your decision, the more likely it is to be cogent. Youll want to supply as many reasons as you can. Write at least one substantial paragraph (6-7 sentences) for this section.
4. Evaluation: Identify at least two objections to your conclusion or arguments against the option that you selected as being morally right or ethically best. Being a good critical thinker involves being able to consider and to understand other points of view. Contrary to the prevailing attitudes in our society, reasonable people can disagree with each other without being crazy or evil. This section aims to help develop your ability to treat and to consider other points of view fairlyeven if you dont agree with them.
a. For each objection, write one paragraph explaining the objection and why someone might think that way. Be careful to give as fair a hearing as you can to each objectiondont build straw man arguments.
b. Then, for each objection, explain how you would respond to them. That is, tell me why you dont agree with those points of view.

Thus, the structure of the Evaluation section should be set up like this:
First Paragraph: First objection or critique of your decision.
Second Paragraph: Your response to the first objection/critique.
Third Paragraph: Second objection or critique of your decision.
Fourth Paragraph: Your response to the second objection/critique.