Critical Thinking Case Study Select the Critical Thinking Case Study link under the Assessment heading on your student website to review the case study. Review and complete the University of Phoenix Material: Critical Thinking Case Study Assignment to finish the case study. University of Phoenix Material Case Study As Individual Critical Thinking Case Study Select the Critical Thinking Case Study link under the Assessment heading on your student website to review the case study. Review and complete the University of Phoenix Material: Critical Thinking Case Study Assignment to finish the case study Assessment WEB LINK: Critical Thinking Case Study Please Note: The Critical Thinking Case Study is a Web-based simulation that involves events at a fictitious company, AcuScan, that occur in the month of February. The narrative of the case study ends on February 27th. Critical Thinking Case Study Assignment Please see the instructor-issued syllabus for further details on individual and Learning Team assignments.signment ASSIGNMENT OVERVIEW Prepare a report for the CEO of AcuScan about the situation described in the GEN 480 Critical Thinking Case Study. Your report should include the following two parts: 1. Part One: Respond to the specific questions on the worksheet that follows (100 points possible). 2. Part Two: Write an executive summary for the CEO of AcuScan. (100 points possible). PART ONE: Use the case materials to complete this assignment. Analysis 1. Describe all assumptions seen in any of documents provided in the case study. For full credit, provide AT MINIMUM: four to six assumptions held by Kelly; six to nine assumptions held by Pat; two to three assumptions held by Cliff; two to three assumptions held by Chris. a. Kelly b. Pat c. Cliff d. Chris 2. Explain the arguments made by each of these people. Explanations should comprise two to six sentences for each of the following: a. Cliff O’Connor b. Pat Lambert c. Kelly Thomas d. Chris Martinas 3. Evaluate each argument listed above as sound or unsound and why. Indicate whether they are emotional or logical in nature. Evaluations should comprise two to six sentences for each of the following: a. Cliff O’Connor b. Pat Lambert c. Kelly Thomas d. Chris Martinas 4. Describe specific fallacious arguments, and identify the people who hold them. For full credit, provide AT MINIMUM four to six fallacious arguments. Conclusions 5. Describe all problems in this situation. Describe a minimum of two to three problems that characterize the situation. Single sentence format is acceptable. 6. For each problem listed above, describe the data, arguments, and reasoning that contribute to the problem. Describe issues of data, arguments, and reasoning-related to each problem within two to six sentences. 7. What is the underlying problem that is the base cause of the conflict within AcuScan? Present the underlying problem in one to four sentences. 8. What alternative solutions would you propose for this situation? Present a MIMINUM of two potential solutions in the format of two to four sentences each. 9. State the relative strengths and weaknesses of each alternative solution. Describe at least one strength and one weakness for each alternative solution. 10. Which solution will you recommend to the CEO and why? In two to six sentences, fully articulate the exact solution you would propose and the reason(s) for that choice. PART TWO: Executive Summary Write an executive summary of the case for the CEO of AcuScan. The executive summary should give readers the essential contents of the master document(s) in approximately two pages. It should preview the main points of your document, enabling readers to build a mental framework for organizing and understanding the detailed information you are presenting, and helping them determine the key results and recommendations reported in your document. Be sure to include the following: 11. Purpose and scope of document 12. Summary of the situation 13. Key points relating to the situation 14. Conclusions 15. Recommendations and actions to be taken, and why 16. Other supportive information: