Fallacy Spotting in Professional Contents

Name

Course

Code

Professor

University

Date Presented

Imagine a practitioner who agrees with your instructor’s suggested answers and reasons and another who does not. Which one would do the least harm to clients? Why?

Critical thinking skills will enable the practitioner spot policies as well as procedures that will in the long run benefit all the clients, thus leaving no chance to harm them. Such skills, as well as other related values and attitudes, will get rid of the fallacy of stereotyping which if it befalls a practitioner, the clients will go to waste. In addition, there will be flexibility of mind and self-criticism that will leave the practitioner with a chance to follow the instructor’s opinion, and thus salvage the interes5s of the clients.

The practitioner who agrees with the instructor’s suggested answers and reasoning would do the least harm. This is because agreeing with the instructor shows critical thinking on the side of the practitioner. Thinking critically is paramount in all the areas of helping professions, including research, practice, administration and social policy.

Which one would most likely help clients? Why?

A practitioner who goes against the instructor will not help clients in any way. Thus, the one who is likely to help clients is the one who agrees with the reasoning as well as opinions of the instructor. This can be approached from the view that the instructor is more experienced than the practitioner. Thus, even in the occurrence of an error on the side of the instructor, it will be an error capable of being easily corrected. At the end of it all, it will be evident that the instructor will be capable of eliminating stereotypes in the field while the practitioner will have a problem in the area.

References

G Eileen and G Leonard, Critical Thinking for helping professionals, (3rd Edition Oxford University Press, 2009)