ENG 112 Critical Thinking Assignment #1
Overview: To gain a realistic understanding of ethics in your life beyond “being honest” or
“doing the ‘right’ thing.”
Due: Wednesday, June 10 by 11:59p
: Your Critical Thinking (Ethical) Assignment has two parts. Part I, you read the
hypothetical scenario and then draft responses to the questions on page two labeled “Part I:
Ethical Questions.” Ensure that you follow MLA Conventions for your Header and Heading.
Part II: Argumentative Core Document requires you submit a core document responding to
some ethical questions regarding a hypothetical voting situation. After reading the scenario, do
not fabricate or assume any facts of the scenario that you do not see described in it. Note: there
is no such thing as power of attorney to cast a vote in a state or federal election.
You need to develop an argumentative core document that is at least a page in length and address
the following question: do you alert your fellow board members that Holly’s ballot is likely not
her own? NOTE: Current assignment will require you to read and then apply the “Eight Key
Questions (8KQ) Questions” (2013) developed at James Madison University to complete your
core document, which means you need to integrate quotes/paraphrases in your response.
You were selected to serve on the Early Voting Board of your county as one of the three
representatives from your political party (Democrat, Independent or Republican) to serve
alongside the presiding judge and three representatives from the opposing political party. Early
voting preceding the 2016 November general election transpired without incident, and Election
Day has arrived.
Your duties today consist of opening absentee ballots and counting the legally submitted ballots
by mail. The counting and verification has gone without incident until a ballot grabs your
attention. The information written on the absentee ballot indicates that it has been cast by Holly
Martin, a woman who lives in your neighborhood and you know somewhat well. Holly lives
with her sister, Margaret, both having moved back into their childhood home several years ago.
The Martin sisters are widows in their seventies who are active members in your political party,
and you see them on occasion at party events where they express nearly identical political
positions and concerns, and you agree with them fully on every political issue you have ever
discussed with them.
You are the only one on the Early Voting Board who knows that Holly Martin suffered a
massive stroke about one month ago, and she has been bedridden, motionless and unresponsive
to others, including her sister, ever since. Holly’s ballot, however, is dated and postmarked last
week, well after her stroke occurred. The ballot next in the stack to be considered is Margaret
Martin’s, which is dated and postmarked on the same date as Holly’s. When you look at the
signature on Margaret’s ballot, you are convinced that it was Margaret who signed Holly’s
The Early Voting Board is unlikely to notice anything out of order, as both Holly and
Margaret are registered voters who have been voting by absentee ballot for several elections,
and nothing on the submitted ballots would seem troublesome to someone who did not know
the Martins personally.
Part I: Key Questions— Make sure to address each question directly and specifically.
1. Ethical self-awareness: Can a situation exist where the casting of a vote would be
ethical if the letter of the law has been violated? Why or why not?
2. Ethical issue recognition: Why is this particular case controversial?
3. Application of ethical perspectives/concepts: Describe the rationale for applicability
or inapplicability for each of the 8KQ. Next, analyze, at fewest, the most important
three Key Questions individually on what insight they provide for this hypothetical
case; to what conclusion would each lead you?
4. Evaluation of different perspectives/concepts: Convey a weighing approach with the
products of the analysis you performed above among the (at fewest three) “Key
Questions” you found the most relevant to this case. Your ultimate decision on the case
before you should be reached through a careful weighing of your products of analysis
that is intelligible, consistent and compelling—as best you can.
Part II: Argumentative Core Document—The structure and mechanics of your core
document are of less importance than your ability to consider the “Key Questions” at play
and address them. Do not be afraid to defend a controversial position; there is not a right or
wrong answer; however, there are well or poorly supported positions.
Regarding MLA Conventions (format), your work must be typed, double-spaced in 12-point
font using Times New Roman with 1” margins, left aligned and indent the first line of each
paragraph, after-spacing reduced to zero and your MLA Header and Heading must be properly
formatted. Required page length for Part II is one page and you must incorporate one quote from
the hypothetical scenario and the “Eight Key Questions (8KQ) Questions.” If you have any
questions, please ask. Concerns about formatting? See the MLA section of your A Writer’s