2PFCA Decision Making Technique

All of us have to make decisions on problems ranging on a continuum from the very simplest to the most difficult in life. It is with this thought in mind that I developed “2PFCA” decision making technique. I hope that it will be of assistance to my readers for organizing and analyzing (SPs) for logical decision makings.

Understanding 2PFCA Terms

Let’s begin by understanding the various “2PFCA” terms. “2PFCA” stands for: SP – Statement of the problem; P – Premises; F – Facts; C – Conclusions; A - Analyses. Now, let me elaborate on each of these terms. I will explain each term as it occurs in the development of the demonstrative Statement of the Problem.

1. Statement of the Problem

Statement of problem is a description of the problem that needs solutions. It can be a real or hypothetical problem. It can be one or multiple. The derived solutions can be definitive or hypothetical.

When it comes to formatting Statement of the Problem, the following is to be followed. If we have only one Statement of Problem, then, we format it as “SP” But if we have multiple Statement of the Problems, then, we format is as “SP1: ... SP2: …”

Let’s format an example of a Statement of a Problem that we can demonstrate its development in this article. Let’s take a current real example from BBC news dated 21 st

December 2010. Here is a clear example of a problem faced by Julian Assange. What we want to do is to organize and analyze (SP) in order to facilitate logical decision making.

Example of Formatting A Statement of Problem: “SP: He (Julian Assange) is fighting the Swedish extradition warrant because he believes "no natural justice" would occur in Sweden (N1: Article source link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12047035).

By the way Note(s) are details or attachments which you like to add to anywhere in the Statement of the Problem. The way you format it is the same as formatting “SP.” For singles notes, use “N” while for multiple notes, use “N1: … N2: …” Now, let’s identify the next two terms of “P” and “C” in the statement of the problem.

2. Premise

The premise is denoted by “P,” is the proposition(s) of the problem.

When it comes to formatting Premise of the Problem, the following format is to be followed. If we have only one Premise of a Problem, then, we format it as “P:” But if we

have multiple Premises of Problems, then, we format is as “P1: … P2: …” And the example of a proposition of the above problem is that,

Example of Formatting A Premise of the Problem: “P: He (Julian Assange) would not be able to get any natural justice in Sweden.”

3. Conclusion

When it comes to formatting Conclusion of the Problem, the following is to be followed. If we have only one Conclusion of the Problem, then, we format it as “C:” But if we have multiple Conclusions of a Problem, then, we format is as “C1: … C2: …” The Conclusion which is denoted by “C,” is what results or entails because of the proposition,

Example of Formatting a Conclusion of the Problem: “C: He (Julian Assange) is fighting a Swedish extradition warrant.”

Thus, we have described the problem (Statement of Problem). We also have identified the proposition of the problem (Premise). And lastly, we know what results or entails (Conclusion) from the proposition of the problem. But there is another component that we have not described yet. It is fact(s) denoted by “F.” What are fact(s)?

4. Fact(s)

Fact(s) are subjective realities (truths) that links, verifies, supports or opposes the proposition “P” and the conclusions “C.” When it comes to formatting Fact(s) of the Problem, the following is to be followed.

If we have only one Fact of a Problem, then, we format it as “F:” But if we have multiple Fact(s) of the Problem, then, we format is as “F1: … F2: …” Fact(s) also needs to be formatted for positive facts (+F: or +F1: or +F2:) when it supports the premise or conclusion or negative facts “-F: or –F1: or –F2:” when it opposes the premise or conclusions. The score for positive facts are “+1.” While the score for negative facts are “-1.”

Fact also can be primary or secondary in nature. Primary facts are subjective realities (truths) found within the context of Statement of the Problem and its Notes. Secondary facts are subjective realities (truths) that are found outside the Statement of the Problems and its Notes. Both are relevant in/for linking, verifying, supporting or opposing the proposition “P” and the conclusions “C.”

To indicate either, the formats to be used are, “FP:” (single primary fact); “+FP1:” (multiple positive primary fact); “FS:” (single secondary fact); “+FPS1:” (multiple positive secondary fact); “-FP:” (single negative primary fact); “-FP1:” (multiple negative primary fact); “-FS:” (single negative secondary fact); and “-FS1:” (multiple negative secondary facts). It must be noted that both positive and negative facts can be used in combination with primary and secondary facts.

And facts may be found as part of the statement of problem or it can be found in the context of the background of the Statement of Problem as demonstrated below:

Example of Fact(s) of the Problem:

"+F: What is requested is that I be taken by force to Sweden and once there, be held incommunicado” (N1: Article source link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12047035. This positive fact (+F) is to point on the possible use of coercion and prevention of communication against Julian Assange and is supportive for his “SP.” Score for “+F: = +1”).

Example of Secondary Positive Facts of the Problem:

“+FS: Wikileaks chief Julian Assange has labelled attempts to extradite him to Sweden as a "smear campaign" (N2: Article source link: http://www.silobreaker.com/smear-campaign-5_2263942013722296330. This is a positive secondary fact (+FS) to show, that, the attempts to him extradite on sexual charges are smear campaigns against him which are supportive of his “SP:” Score for “+FS: = +1”).

Example of Multiple Positive Secondary Facts of the Problem:

“+FS1: Assange's solicitor, Mark Stephens, said: "The allegations of the complainants are not credible and were dismissed by the senior Stockholm prosecutor as not worthy of further investigation." (N3: Article source link: http://www.staplenews.com/home/2010/12/19/10-days-in-sweden-the-full-allegations-against-julian-assang.html. This first multiple positive secondary fact (+FS1) is to show, that, initially all sexual charges were dropped by the senior Stockholm prosecutor as unworthy of further investigation which is supportive of his “SP:”

“+FS2: He (Mark Stephens, Julian Assange lawyer) has also claimed that an initial decision to drop the rape investigation was reversed after the intervention of a 'political' figure, Claes Borgstrom, who is now acting for the two women involved.” (N4: Article source link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11949771. This second multiple positive secondary fact (+FS2 :) is to show, that, the involvement of a political figure, Claes Borgstrom, questions the credibility of the charges against Julian Assange which is supportive of his “SP:” Score for “+FS1: + +FS2: = +2”).

Examples of a Single Negative and Positive Secondary facts of the problem:

“-FS3: He has been criticised in the US, where former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has said he should be hunted down like the al-Qaeda leadership.” (N5: Article source link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12015140. This single negative secondary fact (-FS3 :) is to show the opposing fact against Julian Assange by his accusers such as Sarah Palin who considers him on par with al-Qaeda leadership and that he should share their fate. This fact is in opposition Julian Assange “SP:”

“+FS4: If Sarah Palin represents America or American justice system, Jean Assange will definitely not get justice in America. Such political labelling and demonizing raises the question, whether Wikileaks and Jean Assange are being prosecuted or persecuted.” (N5: Article source link: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/wikileaks-prosecution-or-persecution-is-this-western-democracy-3836499.html. This single positive secondary fact (+FS4 :) is to show the countering of (-FS3 :) by pointing to the demonizing labelling by Sarah Palin which supports Julian Assange “SP:” Thus, the score for (-FS3 :) is “-1” while the score for (+FS4 :) is “+1” The total score would be “(-1) + (+1) = 0”).

Take note of the incremental format of facts as well as the notes. So far we have learned the meanings of the terms “2PFCA” and also how to format them for use. But now, we can organize in a synergy formula and analyze for decision making.

Establishing Overall Analyses

There are two steps in organizing and analyzing the “SP.” First we describe everything that has been discussed in a synergy formula format without the notes. The sequence of the description will be: Statement of the Problem – Premise – Facts – Scores –Interpretation - Conclusion.

Synergy Formula

Statement of the problem

SP: He (Julian Assange) is fighting the Swedish extradition warrant because he believes "no natural justice" would occur in Sweden

Premise

P: He (Julian Assange) would not be able to get any natural justice in Sweden.”

Facts Scores

+F: = 1

+FS: = 1

(+FS1 :) + (+FS2 :) = 2

(-F3 :) + (+ F4 :) = 0

----------

4

Total Score -----------

Interpretation

If we base everything on 100 %, then:

Conclusion:

X1 SP analysed = 10 % of Julian Assange’s (SP)

If X5 were (+Facts) then, there was 0.5 % supported 10 % Julian Assange’s (SP)

If X1 was (-Facts) then, there was 0.1 % opposition to 10 % Julian Assange’s (SP)

Based on these conclusions, we can safely say that (SP) does have the logical basis to be considered as a real and possible outcome for Julian Assange. As such he should be given all the necessary support to get justice while avoiding the extradition that will only bring about injustice.