Fall 2008 Sample Student Work - Critical Thinking
My conclusion is that US leaders need to gain competence and use their authority to stabilize the economy and come up with a plan of action to prevent a deep economic depression. The first premise talks about how Roosevelt inherited an economic crisis. The second premise talks about how he dealt with this crisis and restored confidence, took charge, and came up with a plan. This 1st set of premises leads to the subconclusion that If Us leaders can restore confidence, take charge, and come up with a plan like Roosevelt did, then they can keep America out of an economic crisis. Secondly, the author comes to the subconclusion that the two main leaders who should have control do not so congress needs to step in and install a plan where they have failed to. As his examples, he talks about how Bush has little influence with either side, and the treasurer, Paulson, is good with money but not a good legislator. Third of all, he talks about how 1)228 Congress people voted no to the bailout plan. 2) These leaders ignored the expertise of the treasury and fed. 3) They don’t realize global capital flows have transformed our political economy. His subconclusion is that Leaders are unaware of the potential political implications their vote of no may have on the economy and need to take action next time, voting yes for a plan to stabilize the economy. Fourth, Credit is drying up, Banks cannot be trusted; There is a crisis of authority in Washington DC. So, a plan would take care of these factors by covering all the bases and ensuring stability in the economy, putting people’s minds at ease. Lastly, Congress should try to pass the plan again; it needs to add provisions to shore up housing prices and help mortgage holders to do this. So, by changing proposals and adding proposals, a plan is more likely to be passed to prevent the US from going into tough economic and political times.