2PFCA Decision Making Technique All of us have to make decisions on problems ranging on a continuum from the verysimplest 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 organizingand 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, letme elaborate on each of these terms. I will explain each term as it occurs in thedevelopment 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 bea real or hypothetical problem. It can be one or multiple. The derived solutions can bedefinitive or hypothetical. When it comes to formatting Statement of the Problem, the following is to befollowed. If we have only one Statement of Problem, then, we format it as “SP” But if wehave 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 itsdevelopment in this article. Let’s take a current real example from BBC news dated 21 stDecember 2010. Here is a clear example of a problem faced by Julian Assange. What wewant 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 inthe Statement of the Problem. The way you format it is the same as formatting “SP.” Forsingles notes, use “N” while for multiple notes, use “N1: … N2: …” Now, let’s identify thenext 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 befollowed. 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 ofa 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 befollowed. If we have only one Conclusion of the Problem, then, we format it as “C:” But if wehave multiple Conclusions of a Problem, then, we format is as “C1: … C2: …” The Conclusionwhich 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 haveidentified the proposition of the problem (Premise). And lastly, we know what results orentails (Conclusion) from the proposition of the problem. But there is another componentthat 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 theproposition “P” and the conclusions “C.” When it comes to formatting Fact(s) of theProblem, the following is to be followed. If we have only one Fact of a Problem, then, we format it as “F:” But if we havemultiple Fact(s) of the Problem, then, we format is as “F1: … F2: …” Fact(s) also needs to beformatted for positive facts (+F: or +F1: or +F2:) when it supports the premise or conclusionor negative facts “-F: or –F1: or –F2:” when it opposes the premise or conclusions. The scorefor 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. Secondaryfacts are subjective realities (truths) that are found outside the Statement of the Problemsand its Notes. Both are relevant in/for linking, verifying, supporting or opposing theproposition “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 positivesecondary fact); “-FP:” (single negative primary fact); “-FP1:” (multiple negative primaryfact); “-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 withprimary and secondary facts.
And facts may be found as part of the statement of problem or it can be found inthe 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 heldincommunicado” (N1: Article source link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12047035. Thispositive fact (+F) is to point on the possible use of coercion and prevention ofcommunication 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 toSweden 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 aresupportive of his “SP:” Score for “+FS: = +1”). Example of Multiple Positive Secondary Facts of the Problem:“+FS1: Assanges solicitor, Mark Stephens, said: "The allegations of the complainants are notcredible and were dismissed by the senior Stockholm prosecutor as not worthy of furtherinvestigation." (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 positivesecondary fact (+FS1) is to show, that, initially all sexual charges were dropped by thesenior 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 initialdecision to drop the rape investigation was reversed after the intervention of a politicalfigure, Claes Borgstrom, who is now acting for the two women involved.” (N4: Article sourcelink: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11949771. This second multiple positive secondaryfact (+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-presidentialcandidate 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 negativesecondary fact (-FS3 :) is to show the opposing fact against Julian Assange by his accuserssuch as Sarah Palin who considers him on par with al-Qaeda leadership and that he shouldshare their fate. This fact is in opposition Julian Assange “SP:”
“+FS4: If Sarah Palin represents America or American justice system, Jean Assangewill definitely not get justice in America. Such political labelling and demonizing raises thequestion, 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 SarahPalin which supports Julian Assange “SP:” Thus, the score for (-FS3 :) is “-1” while the scorefor (+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 havelearned 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 describeeverything that has been discussed in a synergy formula format without the notes. Thesequence 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 tobe considered as a real and possible outcome for Julian Assange. As such he should be givenall the necessary support to get justice while avoiding the extradition that will only bringabout injustice.