SOCW 6202 Treatment of AddictionsSPP Treatment Plan Template.docx

SOCW 6202: Treatment of Addictions
SPP Treatment Plan Template
Identified strengths: Strengths that will help client achieve
long-term goal(s) (e.g., supportive family). Client should help
identify. Initially it may be difficult to help client identify
more than one or two strengths but as the course of treatment
continues, more should become evident.
Identified problems/deficits: Factors in client’s life that may
impede successful recovery
Long-term goal(s):
Short-term Goals
Objectives
Strategies
Expected Outcome
(with time-frame)
Stated as broad desirable outcome that will be broken down into
short-term goals and objectives. Usually, one long-term goal
will be adequate for first year.
Example:
1. John will remain abstinent from use of heroin and all other
mood altering substances and behaviors for one year as
demonstrated by negative random drug screens and self-report).
Series of time-limited goals that will lead to achievement of
long-term goal.
Example:
1. John will successfully complete residential treatment.

Statements of what client will do to achieve short-term goal.
Stated in measurable, behavioral terms
Example:
1. John will attend and actively participate in all individual and
group counseling sessions.
2. John will admit he has an addiction problem.
How objective will be carried out or accomplished
Example:
1. Schedule one individual counseling session and five group
counseling sessions weekly.
2. John will complete Step One of the Twelve Steps
Objective, measurable desirable outcome with
timeframeExample:
1. Staff and self-report of regular attendance and active
participation in individual and group counseling sessions (30
days).
2. Self-report to counselor and members of group sessions (30
days).
© 2014 Laureate Education, Inc.

of 1
1
Running head: THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES
The Ethics of Elephants in Circuses
Dr. Christopher Foster
PHI103: Informal Logic
Ashford University
Annotated example for summative assessment
2
THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES
The recent announcement by Ringling Brothers and Barnum &
Bailey that the nation’s top circus would discontinue the use of
elephants in its circuses by 2018 has brought joy to some and
disappointment to others. It has also renewed an old ethical
debate about the use of animals in circuses, a tradition that has
been around for more than 200 years (Davis, 2015).
This paper will present a logical argument on one side of that

debate, consider objections from the
other side, and ultimately defend the position that the use of
these highly intelligent beings in the
circus is wrong.
These sentences
introduce the
topic in a way
that is designed
to capture the
reader’s interest.
This sentence
provides a brief
preview of the paper
(as indicated in the
instructions).
This sentence clearly
states the thesis of
the paper (the
conclusion of your
main argument).
My argument for this thesis goes as follows:
P1: Elephants are highly intelligent animals.

P2: Putting elephants in circuses requires them
to live their lives in extreme confinement.
P3: Anything that requires highly intelligent
animals to live their lives in extreme
confinement is wrong unless it serves a purpose
that outweighs the suffering involved.
P4: Putting elephants in circuses does not serve
a purpose that outweighs the suffering
involved.
C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is
wrong.
Your English teacher may
object if he or she sees your
argument in non-paragraph
form like this. However, logic
teachers tend to love
Standard Form because it
makes your reasoning as clear
as possible. In any case,
presenting the argument for
your thesis in Standard Form
(with each premise and
conclusion on a separate line)
is a requirement of this
particular (logic) paper.
This sentence is not
an example of
creative writing, but
for logic purposes it is
very clear!

3
Clearly state whether
your argument is
deductive or inductive
here.
The next five
paragraphs
systematically
defend the
truth of each
of the premises
of the
argument.
Notice that the
first sentence of
each paragraph
clearly states the
purpose of that
paragraph. These
are called topic
sentences.
Clarifying the
meaning of key
terms within
premises can go a
long way to
explaining the
sense in which

they are true.
This argument is deductive, since it intends to derive its
conclusion
based upon the form of the reasoning used. The fact that it is
logically valid can be seen from the fact that the first and third
premises lay out two conditions for the extreme confinement of
elephants being wrong. Premises one
and two state that those conditions are met, therefore the
conclusion logically follows. Since the
argument is valid, if all of the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be as well. Let’s examine
them one by one.
The first premise, that elephants are highly intelligent animals,
is
widely known by those who have studied them. Scientific
studies have shown
that they are able to independently discover novel methods to
figure out how
to retrieve food, and they have recently been shown to be able
to enlist the
help of other elephants in situations that require cooperation
(Jabr, 2014).
The second premise, that putting elephants in circuses requires

them
to live their lives in extreme confinement, is a sad truth known
to those
who have investigated the matter. When not performing or
being
transported, circus elephants are kept on a short chain that
prevents them
from being able to move around or even lie down normally.
This is what is
meant by ‘extreme confinement’: captivity so severe that the
animal is
not able even to get proper exercise and stimulation. In addition
to the
captivity, there have been many reports, and footage, of abuse
of circus
elephants with bullhooks, electrocution, and other forms of
cruelty (Nelson,
4
There is extra
attention given
to supporting
the most
controversial

premise.
Because of the extra
importance of
defending the most
controversial premise
(often the moral one),
a second paragraph is
devoted to it here.
2011). However, in my argument, the extremity of the
confinement alone is enough to entail that their
use in circuses is wrong.
The third premise makes a strong moral claim, yet it can be
defended. Given the intelligence of elephants, and given their
natural
use of vast savannahs of space, life spent on a tiny chain will
naturally
involve a tremendous amount of suffering. The stress of their
confinement is so severe that they develop “stereotypic
behaviors” such as constant swaying back and
forth, indicating severe psychological distress (Wildlife
Advocacy Project, n.d.). President of PAWS, Ed
Stewart, expresses it well:
Elephants should not be in captivity – period … The social
structure isn’t correct, the space is not

right, the climate is not right, the food is not right … They are
unbelievably intelligent. With all of
that brainpower – to be as limited as they are in captivity – it’s
a wonder they cope at all. In 20
years I hope we will look back and think, “Can you believe we
ever kept those animals in cages?”
(Jabr, 2014)
That level of suffering would seemingly require powerful
justification.
The only remaining question in support of the premise may be
whether animal suffering should count morally as human
suffering does. In defense of the view that animal suffering
requires
justification, I would point out that philosophers on both sides
of the
animal ethics spectrum support a consideration of the basic
welfare of
animals. The prominent anti-animal rights philosopher Carl
Cohen reasons:
5
This is where we

begin considering
the best argument
to the contrary,
developed in the
second paper.
Although animals do not have rights, it does not follow from
this fact that one is free to treat
them with callous disregard. It is silly to think of rats as the
holders of moral rights, but it is by
no means silly to recognize that rats can feel pain and that we
have an obligation to refrain from
torturing them because they are beings that have that capacity
(Cohen, 2001).
Such a view agrees well with the reasoning of pro-animal
philosopher Peter Singer who states, “If a
being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to
take that suffering into consideration”
(Singer, 1989). Suffering, by its nature, has negative value, and
as each of these philosophers point out,
the ethical relevance of suffering does not depend upon the
species of the sufferer. Therefore, as the
premise states, if animal suffering does not serve an important
purpose that outweighs the suffering, we
should conclude that it is unjustified and therefore wrong.
The final premise states that keeping elephants for circuses does

not serve a purpose strong
enough to outweigh the suffering involved. It is clear that many
people across the nation enjoy the
circus. However, how does their enjoyment compare against the
suffering of the elephants? It should be
noted that many circuses operate without the use of animals.
Acrobats, clowns, and other human
performers are capable of providing a riveting show without the
captivity of animals. Given that the use
of elephants only provides some added measure of
entertainment value to some people perhaps once a
year, and given the extreme suffering of intelligent animals
from confinement all year, it does not
appear that their added entertainment value outweighs the
tremendous suffering inflicted on these
highly intelligent beings.
Given the weight of the matter and its degree of
controversy, it is important to consider the best arguments on
the
other side. In other words, why would an intelligent person
disagree
with this argument? The most common response is that
elephants in

6
Make sure to do a
good and fair job of
representing the best
argument from the
opposite side.
This is the required
response to the
objection. Make sure
to address the key
concern expressed by
the objection to your
argument.
circuses are not badly mistreated.
This objection is in fact it is the primary response given by the
circus itself. Their website, titled
“Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant
Conservation” refers to the Asian elephants
as “pampered performers,” and states “A positive, healthy
environment is the foundation of training
elephants. Therefore, the cornerstone of all circus elephant
training at Ringling Bros. is reinforcement
through praise, repetition, and reward” (elephantcenter, n.d.).
Furthermore, the site indicates,

“Elephants at Ringling Bros. Are stimulated by all the exciting
activity
around them, have time for play and social interaction with
other animals, and have a chance to use their physical and
mental
skills every day.” If the animals are not mistreated and enjoy
frequent
stimulation, then it seems to follow that the objection is
misplaced or at least exaggerated.
In response to the objection we have to consider whether
the animals are allowed to roam free during the times in which
they are not performing, or whether their days are mostly spent
on
short chains or in cramped transport vehicles. A year-long
Mother
Jones investigation of the very elephants used by Ringling Bros.
showed that the latter is the case:
Ringling elephants spend most of their long lives either in
chains or on trains, under constant
threat of the bullhook, or ankus – the menacing tool used to
control elephants. They are lame
from balancing their 8,000-pound frames on tiny tubs and from
being confined in cramped

spaces, sometimes for days at a time. They are afflicted with
tuberculosis and herpes,
potentially deadly diseases rare in the wild and liked to
captivity (Nelson, 2011).
7
There is a lot of
latitude about how to
wrap up your paper,
but it is always a good
idea to close with a
restatement of your
thesis.
This, combined with video footage of Ringling Bros. elephants
in extreme captivity, shows that the
animals, in fact, do undergo prolonged periods of extreme
confinement and suffer as a result (Kelly
RepublicansAgainstCruelty, 2013).
There are many important questions that remain to be
answered, such as whether this reasoning also entails the
wrongness of the confinement of other intelligent animals
like orcas, dolphins, and chimpanzees. It is also a good question
of

whether the reasoning extends to farm animals raised in the
extreme confinement of factory farms. This paper, however, has
made a deductively sound case for a
more modest conclusion: That the extreme confinement of
elephants for mere entertainment is wrong.
8
References
Cohen, C. (2001). Why animals do not have rights. In The
Animal Rights Debate (pp. 27-40). Oxford,
England: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Davis, J. (March 7, 2015). A bittersweet blow for the elephant:
Ringling Brothers will retire its elephants,
and an American tradition. New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/opinion/sunday/ringling-
brothers-will-retire-its-
elephants-and-an-american-tradition.html
Elephantcenter (n.d.). Pampered performers. Retrieved from

http://www.elephantcenter.com/meet-
our-herd/pampered-performers/
Jabr, F. (February 26, 2014). The science is in: Elephants are
even smarter than we realized. Scientific
American. Retrieved from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-is-in-
elephants-are-even-smarter-than-we-realized-video
Kelly RepublicansAgainstCruelty (May 31, 2013). Ringling
Bros circus elephant show – Ringling Bros and
Barnum and Bailey documentary. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cgPa38_msk
Nelson, D. (2011). The cruelest show on earth. Mother Jones.
Retrieved from
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/10/ringling-
bros-elephant-abuse
Singer, P. (1989). All animals are equal. In T. Regan & P.
Singer (Eds.), Animal Rights and Human
Obligations (pp. 73-86). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
Inc.
Wildlife Advocacy Project (n.d.). Tools of the circus trade.
Retrieved from
http://www.wildlifeadvocacy.org/current/circus/tools_of_the_tra
de.php

Make sure you have a
reference page in APA
format.
brothers-will-retire-its-elephants-and-an-american-
tradition.html
brothers-will-retire-its-elephants-and-an-american-
tradition.html
http://www.elephantcenter.com/meet-our-herd/pampered-
performers/
http://www.elephantcenter.com/meet-our-herd/pampered-
performers/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cgPa38_msk
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/10/ringling-
bros-elephant-abuse
http://www.wildlifeadvocacy.org/current/circus/tools_of_the_tra
de.php
Tips for Creating an Inductively Strong Argument
Begin by taking a look at the companion document “How to
Construct a Valid Main Argument.” Many of
the steps in that document are important here as well, especially
steps 1-3:
1. State your (tentative) conclusion.

2. Ask yourself why it is true. List that reason as a premise. (In
the inductive case, there may be
several reasons.)
3. Find another premise (or premises) to link the stated premise
to the conclusion.
The difference is that, with inductive reasoning, the link in step
3 is not an absolute one, but a probable
one. You will want to pick the evidence that lends the greatest
likelihood of your conclusion being true.
For more information about inductive reasoning and how to
strengthen it, take another look at Chapters
5 and 6 in our book as well as the guidance for the course. The
intention of this document is to look at
some of the various types of inductive arguments discuss briefly
how to strengthen them.
Statistical Reasoning:
Inductive arguments often utilize statistics to provide evidence
for their conclusions. Your argument for
your conclusion may or may not exactly match the statistical
syllogism or inductive generalization forms,
but there is a good chance you will find statistics useful in an
inductive argument argument.
For example, here are some statistics that might help support a
conclusion:
• People who text while driving are 2300% more likely to crash
while driving (Richtel, 2009).
Therefore, it is wrong to text while driving.

• More than 4% of people on death row are likely to be innocent
(McLaughlin, 2014).
Therefore, the death penalty is wrong.
• Approximately 40% of restaurants fail within the first three
years (Miller, 2007)
Therefore, restaurants are not a good investment.
Adding the missing premise: You can strengthen each of these
inferences by adding another premise to
link the given premise(s) to the conclusion. You will want this
link to be as strong as it can be while
remaining true. It is often possible for the missing premise to be
strong enough to make the argument
deductively valid. Here is a linking premise that makes the first
argument deductively valid:
P1: People who text while driving are 2300% more likely to
crash while driving (Richtel, 2009).
P2: Anything that increases the likelihood of crashing that much
is wrong to do.
C: Therefore, it is wrong to text while driving.
Whether your argument ends up deductively valid or remains
inductive, you can usually make your
argument stronger by adding a premise that links your statistic
to your conclusion.
A standard statistical syllogism:
97% of Fs are G

X is an F
Therefore X is G
Can benefit, for example, from a premise that states that X is
just as likely as every other F to be a G.
Appeals to Authority
As noted in the Chapter 5, appeals to authority are not always
fallacious, and, in fact, are often quite
strong, especially if the matter is well established by experts.
For example, even though some of the
claims of quantum physics might seem absurd (many of them
do), one would be wise to accept that
quantum physics is true because of the preponderance of top
authorities that have studied it carefully
and found it to be true. The reasoning appeals more than one
authority in the same inference.
Nearly all physicists today accept the truth of quantum physics.
Therefore, quantum physics is very likely to be true.
If your conclusion is a moral one, about what one ought or
ought not to do, then relying only on
authority will generally not be adequate because moral
principles are not generally the type that can be
settled by appeals to authority. Philosophers and other scholars
can offer pearls of wisdom about such
issues and may be used as authorities, but they are not likely to
settle those non-objective matters
merely by assertion of authority.

Authorities often do weigh in, however, on matters of fact that
are still seen as controversial. For
example:
97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and
likely due to human activity
(NASA, 2015).
Therefore climate change is real and likely due to human
activity.
In such cases, you will want to strengthen your reasoning by
studying the reasons that 3% may disagree
and determine if those counterarguments can be overcome. In
all cases it is best to examine objections
to any assertion of authority and determine how objective and
observable the facts of the matter are in
the given case.
Adding the missing premise: Here too, inductive inferences can
be strengthened and clarified by adding
a premise that links the premise to the conclusion. Here is an
example:
Neil deGrasse Tyson says that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate.
Added premise: Neil deGrasse Tyson is a leading expert on
astrophysics.
Therefore, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
Inferences to the Best Explanation
Inferences to the best explanation, while inductive, can provide

very strong evidence for conclusions.
The discovery that the sun is at the center of the solar system,
for example, was based on this form of
reasoning. For examples, take a look at Chapter 6 of our book.
How strong such an inference is is often based on whether there
exists a stronger explanation. Here is
an example that you might see on Dateline:
The deceased’s husband took out a life insurance plan for her
only a month before she was
killed.
She told her sister the week before that she thought he was
planning to kill her.
He was the only one with her on the weekend that it happened.
The story he told about what happened didn’t match the forensic
evidence.
Therefore, the husband is probably guilty.
In such cases, we want to investigate not only the premises of
this argument but also the likelihood of
an alternate explanation of the evidence.
Adding the missing premise: Here too, you can strengthen the
inference by adding a premise that makes
more clear that this is the best explanation available, like this
one:
Added premise: The husband being guilty is the only plausible
explanation of why she died.

Making this premise explicit both can strengthen the argument,
and it can also remind us to check
carefully whether the added premise is true.
A Combination of Approaches
With inductive reasoning, evidence is cumulative. The more
evidence that you can find for your
conclusion, the stronger the argument becomes. It is often best
to use a combination of different types
of inductive inference to arrive at your conclusion. Many simple
arguments implicitly involve a
combination of statistical reasoning, appeals to authority, and
inferences to the best explanation. Here
is an example,
Based on the results of scientific studies, the Center for Disease
Control reports that vaccines do
not cause autism (CDC, 2015).
Therefore, vaccines do not cause autism.
This inductive inference to implicitly involve several types of
inductive reasoning in the same inference:
Studies with large samples have shown that vaccines do not
cause autism.
Medical authorities have stated that vaccines do not cause
autism.
Therefore, vaccines do not cause autism.
Adding the Connecting Premise:
We can further strengthen and clarify the reasoning, again, by
adding the connecting premise:

Added premise: It is unlikely, given the extensive scientific
study of the matter that all of these
studies and all of these authorities are wrong.
This example, of course, has opposition. Any inductive reasoner
would do well to consider the substance
of the best arguments on the other side.
Considering Arguments on the Other Side
Another step from the “Steps to the Creation of a Valid
Argument” document that is highly relevant to
inductive reasoning as well is this one:
8. Consider possible objections to your argument and possible
ways to strengthen it.
Given that inductive reasoning can be strengthened or weakened
with new information, it is essential to
consider the evidence on the other side in developing your
argument.
In cases in which the contrary evidence can be overcome,
showing how to overcome it will strengthen
your argument. On the other hand, if you find that the contrary
evidence has merit then you can
demonstrate intellectual honesty by including concessions and
by changing your reasoning to
accommodate it. If the objection is correct, you may need to
change your conclusion in light of this fact.
Your new thesis may even contain an acknowledgment of the

concession:
Though there are many ancient and scenic forests that should be
preserved, the current for
practice of logging for paper and wood resources is generally
sustainable.
Ultimately, the incorporation of an understanding of the
arguments for the other side will make your
reasoning more sophisticated and more honest, and in most
cases, actually stronger.
Summary of some principles for creating inductively strong
arguments:
2. Ask yourself why it is true. Provide the best possible.
3. Find another premise that links the premise to the conclusion.
4. Combine all of the types of evidence that you can to support
the conclusion as strongly as
possible.
5. Carefully consider the best evidence for the opposite view
and allow that to influence/improve
your reasoning and possibly your conclusion.
6. Repeat the process so that your argument is as strong as you
can get it while having true
premises.

References:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015). Vaccines do
not cause autism. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism/
McLaughlin, M. (2014, April 28). Shocking number of innocent
people sentenced to death, study finds.
Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/28/innocent-death-
penalty-
study_n_5228854.html
Miller, K. (2007, April 16). The restaurant-failure myth.
Retrieved from
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2007-04-16/the-
restaurant-failure-mythbusinessweek-
business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
Nasa (2015). Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree.
Retrieved from
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism/
penalty-study_n_5228854.html
penalty-study_n_5228854.html
restaurant-failure-mythbusinessweek-business-news-stock-
market-and-financial-advice
restaurant-failure-mythbusinessweek-business-news-stock-
market-and-financial-advice

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Richtel, M. (2009, July 27). In study, texting lifts crash risk by
large margin. New York Times. Retrieved
from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/technology/28texting.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/technology/28texting.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=0Tips for Creating an Inductively Strong
Argument
How to Construct a Valid Main Argument
Let’s assume that you have chosen your topic and you have a
sense of your position on it (though it can
be refined as you develop your argument). Suppose, for
example, that your topic is the use of elephants
in circuses, and suppose you think that it is wrong. This (or
some version of it) will be the conclusion of
your argument.
We just need the premises to get to it. Here is where our
argument stands:
P1: ?
P2: ?
C: It is wrong to use elephants in circuses.
2. Ask yourself why it is true. List that reason as a premise.
Next, ask yourself why it is wrong? It would not be a bad idea

to do a little research at this point so that
your reason is more informed. In our example, it might be that
the elephants have to live their lives in
confinement. This reason is a premise:
P1: Putting elephants in circuses requires them to live their
lives in confinement.
C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is wrong.
We now need another premise to link the premises to the
conclusion. In general, if your conclusion has
this form:
P1: X is A
P2: ?
C: X is B
Then the simplest premise to add to make it valid is “All As are
Bs.”
Alternatively, if the argument has the form
P1: X is A
P2: ?
C: X is not B
Then the simplest missing premise is “No As are Bs.”
4. Determine if the added premise is true. If it has exceptions
then you will need to modify it so
that it is true.
The simplest missing premise is not always the best one, but it
is a good place to start. In our example,
the simplest missing premise would be “Anything that requires
elephants to live their lives in
confinement is wrong.” We now ask: Is this premise true? If so

then your argument may be sound. Here
it is:
P2: Anything that requires elephants to live their lives in
confinement is wrong.
However, in many cases, the universal statement “All As are
Bs” is too general, and it has many
exceptions. These exceptions may mean that the statement is
false, so the argument would be unsound.
To fix it, it will not do simply to put in the word “usually.” The
reason is that it will make the argument
invalid. Suppose you put it in the premise, then we have to put
it in the conclusion too:
P1: X is A
P2: As are usually B
C: X is usually B
The trouble is that the argument is still invalid. How do we
know that the X is not one of the types of As
that are not B? Here would be an example to show why it is
invalid:
P1: People from Hungary are human.
P2: Humans do not usually speak Hungarian.

C: People from Hungary do not usually speak Hungarian.
That shows that the form is not valid. To avoid this problem, we
may need something more specific than
adding ‘usually.’ We have to figure out a principle that explains
those circumstances in which the
statement is true.
In our example, the premise “Anything that requires elephants
to live their lives in confinement is
wrong” would imply that zoos are wrong as well. Perhaps you
feel that zoos are wrong as well. In that
case you can stick with the premise as is and defend it against
that potential objection. Another
possibility is that you think that zoos are not wrong, but then
you will have to come up with a difference
between zoos and circuses that makes one acceptable but not the
other.
One possible difference is that circuses require ‘extreme’
confinement because circus elephants spend
the majority of their lives on a tiny chain, whereas good zoos
give them more room to roam. In that
case, you could change your premise to this one:
lives in extreme confinement.
However, if we modify that premise alone, then the argument
will be invalid because that premise no
longer matches the second premise, which brings us to our next
step:

5. Modify the other premises so that the wording matches the
modification so that your
argument is valid again.
In this case, a simple modification of P2, to match the change in
P1 will do the trick:
extreme confinement is wrong.
Notice that the word ‘extreme’ has to be placed in both
premises so that they match and lead logically
to the conclusion. Premises of valid arguments form links in a
chain that lead logically to the conclusion.
If you have a premise that says that X is A, B, and C, and you
want that X is D, then you need a premise
that links the exact wording of A, B, and C to D, as follows:
P1: X is A, B, and C
P2: Anything that is A, B, and C is D
C: Therefore, X is D
In this way, the link of the chain is solid, linked by the logical
form of the argument.
There is yet another way to change the argument so that it is
valid. Another possible difference between
circuses and zoos is that you may feel that zoos serve an

important purpose, whereas circuses do not. If
that is the case, then your change to the moral premise might
look like this:
confinement is wrong unless it serves
an important purpose.
This argument, however, is invalid. Do you see why?
6. Add any premises necessary to get logically to the conclusion
in the new version.
We need another premise. We don’t know that the conclusion is
true unless we know that circuses do
not serve an important purpose. Here would be the new
argument:
confinement is wrong unless it serves
an important purpose.
P3: Putting elephants in circuses do not serve an important
purpose.
7. Determine if all of the premises are true and if the argument
is valid.

Are you satisfied with the argument? Carefully double check its
validity and the truth of each premise. If
there is a possible way to make the premises true and the
conclusion false, then the argument is invalid.
Return to step 3 and repeat the process. If there is a premise
that is not quite true then the argument,
even if valid, is unsound. Return to step 4 and repeat the
process. This process can take quite a bit of
versions to get an argument just right.
ways to strengthen it.
In our case, for example, the phrase “important purpose” is
vague. One might consider the role of
elephants in circuses to be an important purpose. This does not
mean that our idea was wrong, only
that it may need to be revised further.
Perhaps what the argument really meant is that the degree of
suffering of the severely confined
elephants is not justified by the added degree of pleasure to
circus goers of seeing elephants there. This
insight could be incorporated into the argument. An improved
version of the argument then might look
like this:
confinement is wrong unless it serves a
purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.

P3: Putting elephants in circuses do not serve a purpose that
outweighs the suffering involved.
One could even go further and wonder why the argument is
limited to elephants. Perhaps one could say
the same about certain other species of animals as well. If one
wanted to strengthen the argument, the
premise 2 could be modified to include a broader class of
‘highly intelligent animals’, as follows:
P2: Anything that requires highly intelligent animals to live
their lives in confinement is wrong
unless it serves a purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.
outweighs the suffering involved in
their lives of confinement.
9. Triple check the soundness of the argument, and repeat the
steps as many times as necessary
to get it just right.
In this case, though premise 2 is stronger (entailing similar
conclusions about dolphins, orcas,
chimpanzees, and perhaps other types of animals as well), the
argument has become technically invalid.
Do you see why? To make it valid again, we simply need a new
premise to connect the wording “’highly
intelligent” to elephants, resulting in:

P2: Anything that requires highly intelligent animals to live
their lives in confinement is wrong
unless it serves a purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.
outweighs the suffering involved.
P4: Elephants are highly intelligent animals.
Perhaps the reader finds this to be an acceptable argument for
use in paper. However, there will still be
people who disagree. Think about some ways in which people
might disagree and see if the argument
can be further strengthened (while remaining logically valid). It
is a very challenging process, but it is one
that at the end can actually make you smarter!
Summary of the Steps
In summary, here are the steps to follow:
2. Ask yourself why it is true. List that reason as a premise.
Hint: If your premise is “X is A”,
and your conclusion is “X is wrong” then you could use “All As
are wrong.”
4. Determine if the added premise is true. If it has exceptions
then you will need to modify it so
that it is true. Hint: Do not merely add a word like “usually,”

but try to determine the principle
that makes a difference between the cases that are wrong and
that are not wrong (or whatever
word your are employing). Add this principle to the premise so
that it is true.
5. Modify the other premises so that the wording matches the
modification (e.g. adding the word
‘extreme’ in the above example) of the moral premise and so
that your argument is valid again.
6. Add any premises necessary to get logically to the conclusion
in the new version (e.g. adding the
premise that circuses don’t serve an important purpose in the
above example).
7. Determine if all of the premises are true and if the argument
is valid. If not then return to step
four and repeat the process until it is valid and has all true
premises (true as far as you can tell).
ways to strengthen it. If you can
make your argument stronger, while remaining sound then go
for it. You are done (for now)
when you have an argument that says what you want it to say,
and has all true premises, and
has a logically valid form of reasoning. Great work; you should
feel smarter!
9. Triple check the soundness of the argument, and repeat the
steps as many times as necessary to
get it just right.

Note: This is not the only way to create valid arguments,
however, this process is very effective for
creating valid arguments with normative conclusions. For
further instruction, see the supplemental
document: Principles of valid arguments.
Examples:
Finally, here are some other examples of valid arguments that
can result from such a process:
Any action in which all of the participants are voluntary and
that does not violate anyone’s rights is
ethically permissible.
All of the participants in boxing are voluntary.
Boxing does not violate anyone’s rights.
Therefore, boxing is ethically permissible
It is foolish to do things with one’s money that have a known
likelihood of leading to a net financial loss.
Gambling is something that people do with their money.
Gambling has a known likelihood of leading to a net financial
loss.
Therefore, it is foolish to gamble.
The government should never do things that prevent people
from becoming fully informed citizens,
unless it is necessary for public security.
Banning books prevents people from becoming fully informed
citizens.
Therefore, the government should never ban books unless it is
necessary for public security.
Using illegal drugs is addictive and does not have long term
benefits that outweigh the risks.
Things that are addictive have the potential to ruin one’s life.

One should not do things that have the potential to ruin one’s
life unless they have long term benefits
that outweigh their risks.
Therefore, one should not use illegal drugs.
How to Construct of a Valid Main Argument
INTRODUCTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Introductions and conclusions are important components of any
essay. They work to book-end the argument made in the body
paragraphs by first explaining what points will be made (in the
introduction) and then summarizing what points were made (in
the conclusion).
An introduction works to let your reader know what he or she
can expect from your paper. Your introduction should grab your
reader's attention, introduce your topic, and explain your
purpose.
Begin your introduction with a "hook" that grabs your reader's
attention and introduces the general topic. You can do this with
an interesting quotation (that you must cite), an anecdote that
captures the topic, a rhetorical question, a direct statement, or
an attention-grabbing fact or statistic.
Next, make a statement or two about the more focused topic that
the paper will expand on. This part of the introduction can
include background on the topic that helps to establish its
context.
Finally, include your thesis statement. This statement should
include your specific topic, your opinion/claim about that topic,
and typically, the reasons you have for making that claim. This
statement should be packaged so that if it were to stand on its
own, it would let your reader would know your specific topic,
the claim you make about that topic, and the reasons you have
for making that claim.
A conclusion works to remind your reader of the claim and main

points of your paper and summarizes what you want your reader
to “take away” from your argument. Consider these tips when
writing your conclusion:
Begin with your rephrased thesis statement to remind your
reader of the point of your paper.
Summarize the points you made in your paper and show how
they support your argument; tie all the pieces of your paper
together.
Tell your reader what the significance of your argument might
be. Do you want your reader to think differently, question
something, or perform some action? Make a recommendation of
what your reader should "do" with the information you just gave
them.
After you have written your own conclusion, ask yourself:
If my readers were to only read my conclusion, would they
understand my paper's purpose?
Do I summarize my argument for my readers?
Do I answer the question "So what, who cares?"
Do I tie all of my points together?
Thesis Statement Guide Development Tool
Follow the steps below to formulate a thesis statement. All cells
must contain text.
1. State your topic.
regulating children's television use
2. State your opinion/main idea about this topic.
This will form the heart of your thesis. An effective statement
will
express one major idea.
name the topic and assert something specific about it.
be a more specific statement than the topic statement above.
take a stance on an issue about which reasonable people might
disagree.
state your position on or opinion about the issue.
parents should regulate the amount of television their children

watch
3. Give the strongest reason or assertion that supports your
opinion/main idea.
it is not always intellectually stimulating
4. Give another strong reason or assertion that supports your
opinion/main idea.
it inhibits social interaction
5. Give one more strong reason or assertion that supports your
opinion/main idea.
it shortens children's attention spans
6. Include an opposing viewpoint to your opinion/main idea, if
applicable. This should be an argument for the opposing view
that you admit has some merit, even if you do not agree with the
overall viewpoint.
television can be educational
7. Provide a possible title for your essay.
Touch that Dial!
Thesis Statement Guide Results
Thesis Statement Model #1: Sample Thesis Statement
Parents should regulate the amount of television their children
watch.
Thesis Statement Model #2: Thesis with Concession
Notice that this model makes a concession by addressing an
argument from the opposing viewpoint first, and then uses the
phrase "even though" and states the writer's opinion/main idea
as a rebuttal.
Even though television can be educational, parents should
regulate the amount of television their children watch.
Thesis Statement Model #3: Thesis with Reasons
Here, the use of "because" reveals the reasons behind the
writer's opinion/main idea.

parents should regulate the amount of television their children
watch because it shortens children's attention spans, it inhibits
social interaction, and it isn't always intellectually stimulating.
Thesis Statement Model #4: Thesis with Concession and
Reasons
This model both makes a concession to opposing viewpoint and
states the reasons/arguments for the writer's main idea.
While television can be educational, parents should regulate the
amount of television their children watch because it inhibits
social interaction, shortens children's attention spans, and isn't
always intellectually stimulating.
Remember: These thesis statements are generated based on the
answers provided on the form. Use the Thesis Statement Guide
as many times as you like. Your ideas and the results are
anonymous and confidential. When you build a thesis statement
that works for you, ensure that it addresses the assignment.
Finally, you may have to rewrite the thesis statement so that the
spelling, grammar, and punctuation are correct.
Thesis Statement Guide: Sample Outline
Use the outline below, which is based on the five–paragraph
essay model, when drafting a plan for your own essay. This is
meant as a guide only, so we encourage you to revise it in a way
that works best for you.
Introductory Paragraph
Start your introduction with an interesting "hook" to reel your
reader in. An introduction can begin with a rhetorical question,
a quotation, an anecdote, a concession, an interesting fact, or a
question that will be answered in your paper. The idea is to
begin broadly and gradually bring the reader closer to the main
idea of the paper. At the end of the introduction, you will
present your thesis statement. The thesis statement model used
in this example is a thesis with reasons.
Even though television can be educational , parents should
regulate the amount of television their children watch because it
shortens children's attention spans, it inhibits social interaction,

and it is not always intellectually stimulating
Paragraph #1
First, parents should regulate the amount of television their
children watch because it shortens children's attention spans.
Notice that this Assertion is the first reason presented in the
thesis statement. Remember that the thesis statement is a kind
of "mapping tool" that helps you organize your ideas, and it
helps your reader follow your argument. In this body paragraph,
after the Assertion, include any evidence–a quotation, statistic,
data–that supports this first point. Explain what the evidence
means. Show the reader how this entire paragraph connects back
to the thesis statement.
Paragraph #2
Additionally, it inhibits social interaction.
The first sentence of the second body paragraph should reflect
an even stronger Assertion to support the thesis statement.
Generally, the second point listed in the thesis statement should
be developed here. Like with the previous paragraph, include
any evidence–a quotation, statistic, data–that supports this point
after the Assertion. Explain what the evidence means. Show the
reader how this entire paragraph connects back to the thesis
statement.
Paragraph #3
Finally, the most important reason parents should regulate the
amount of television their children watch is it is not always
intellectually stimulating.
Your strongest point should be revealed in the final body
paragraph. Also, if it's appropriate, you can address and refute
any opposing viewpoints to your thesis statement here. As
always, include evidence–a quotation, statistic, data–that
supports your strongest point. Explain what the evidence means.
Show the reader how this entire paragraph connects back to the
thesis statement.
Concluding Paragraph
Indeed, while television can be educational, parents should
regulate the amount of television their children watch.

Rephrase your thesis statement in the first sentence of the
conclusion. Instead of summarizing the points you just made,
synthesize them. Show the reader how everything fits together.
While you don't want to present new material here, you can
echo the introduction, ask the reader questions, look to the
future, or challenge your reader.
Remember: This outline is based on the five–paragraph model.
Expand or condense it according to your particular assignment
or the size of your opinion/main idea. Again, use the Thesis
Statement Guide as many times as you like, until you reach a
thesis statement and outline that works for you.
Running head: EMPLOYEES’ SOCIAL MEDIA CONDUCT 1
Employees’ Social Media Conduct
Kaleena Springsteen
PHI 103 Informal Logic
Daniel Hayes
March 20, 2017
- 1 -
[no notes on this page]
EMPLOYEES’ SOCIAL MEDIA CONDUCT 2
P1- Social media is part of our day to day life connecting with

friends, families and loved ones
P2- Social media can impact negatively in our day to day
interaction, affecting the organization
negatively
P3- Social media can taint organizational image if employee’s
accounts are not checked or tamed
P4- Companies need to check employees social media in order
to regulate and help restore good
image of the entity
C-Therefore, monitoring employee’s social media will go along
in restoring company image and
position.
Technology savvy, the Internet, and social networks have
reduced the world into a global
village. Human privacy has been put to the test with social
media key in the sharing of info,
events, and activities across the globe. It has force employers
resolving to use social to monitor
its employee’s code of conduct outside the organizational
setting. Arguably, workers are
significant to an organization, and they carry the image or brand
of the entity thus having more
power to encourage certain attitudes and perceptions as to their

employer at work and out of
work (Pearson, 2010). It is, therefore, precise for companies to
take good care of their image
through monitoring and instilling discipline against those
who violate social media code of
conduct by either acting in a suggestive manner that will have
negative impacts on the entity.
However, the view can be stated otherwise thus prompting the
question, should it be legal for
employers to discipline or fire employees by content aired on
social networks even if the activity
was not done on the job.
The way employees behave after work or outside the company
setting matters and have a
great impact on the company’s brand image regardless of
either it was private or public
(Qualman, 2010). As such, companies who are mostly engaged
in business are required to shield
- 2 -
1
1. C-Therefore,
Make sure your conclusion

directly addresses the topic or
issue. A short simple
statement is all that is
needed. An example in your
case would be "therefore,
employees have an obligation
to report wrongdoing."
[Daniel Haynes]
their employer by having a frequent monitor of their worker’s
social media code of conduct that
which can indirect or direct ruin the reputation of the company.
A perfect example is a teacher
who results to vulgar language in social media may prompt his
or students to view the post and
may have a dire impact on them. It is not easy to have social
media conduct and professional
ethics detached because employee’s behavior may reflect their
ethical conduct at work (Kaplan
& Heinlein, 2010).

Therefore, it is prudent to administer discipline and punish
workers who seem not to
show right conduct in the social media content. Some many
argue that is not right to go for that
option, stating that it is based on assumptions that employee
conduct on the social media portrays
a negative image on the employer’s side. Qualman 2010)
argues that there is exist a master-
servant relationship between the worker and employee thus a
servant portraying bad influence
means a rogue employee. Hence, bad content on employee’s
social media impacts negatively on
public admirations against the company.
Unfortunately, there is a common wave followed by most
employees, propagating
negative information targeting their employer. Some of the
messages can evoke bad relationship
or taint a bad picture on the employer. Failing to screen
employee’s social media means
propagating negative information about the company or
creating division amongst employees
thus the lack of morale (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). It is the
jurisdiction of every employer to

make sure it monitors and scrutinize employees to promote a
code of respect.
In conclusion, it is the solemn right for employers to
defend their brand image at all
times. How they go about concerns them more, the top
management of a company is usually in
- 3 -
trouble whenever something bad about the pops out. A close
look on the employee’s social media
guarantees employers of safe investments and good company
reputation.
- 4 -
Reference
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the
world, unite! The challenges and

opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Pearson, C. (2010). The cost of bad behavior: How incivility is
damaging your business and what
to do about it. Human Resource Management International
Digest, 18(6).
Qualman, E. (2010). Socialnomics: How social media
transforms the way we live and do
business. John Wiley & Sons.
- 5 -
Running Head: EMPLOYEE’S SOCIAL MEDIA CONDUCT 1
Kaleena Springsteen
Daniel Hayes
April 3, 2017
Counter Argument – Social Media Conduct
Social media is the trend that has taken over our lives very

quickly and has a great amount of impact in everything that we
do. It has become an important part of our personal and
professional lives. As a result it is believed that the social
media conduct of employees should be monitored in order to
ensure that no such conduct is observed that causes the company
to have a negative image.
However, this point is not entirely valid. Social media is a form
of freedom of speech and if companies try to regulate what their
employees are doing on social media it is ethically wrong and
too intrusive into their lives. Social media is a part of their
personal lives and the company does not exercise a right to see
and control what they do there. It is separate from what they
practice in professional life and their social media image is not
to be associated with their work.
Building onto the above point, all professionals also know how
to use social media properly. They themselves are aware that it
is not to be used in any way that would taint the image of their
company.
Companies need to invest in the training of their employees if
they fear that their social media conduct is negative. This can
be covered if they are trained and developed in a way that they
would be strong in ethics and communication etc. Other than
this the company need not pry into their personal lives that
includes their behavior on social media.
The side that would agree with the above point realizes that
social media regulation on account of making sure that
employees are behaving nicely is not right on the company’s
part. On the other hand, those that disagree with the point would
want regulations in place by the company that would restrict the
way that the employees use social media. This however reflects
well on the company as it shows that they are trying to exert too
much control over their employees and this does not account as
a strong employee value proposition. Employees and potential
employees would not like working for this company.
If anything, this can be used to the company’s advantage. They
can ask their employees to promote the company brand online

and on social media so as to create good impact. Instead of
restricting this, the social media of the employees should be
considered as an opportunity and a strength rather than a
weakness or a threat. Employees can write blogs about the
company and the company can guide them on how to effectively
use it to the company’s benefit and to motivate the employees,
the company can attach incentives with this. (Wright & Hinson,
2008)
In conclusion, one can see that companies should use all the
resources that are of high impact and use it to their advantage.
This includes the use of social media by their employees and
they should come up with strategies to use it to further a
positive image of the company as it can become an important
part of the promotion mix. (Mangolda & Faulds, 2009)
References
Mangolda, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The
new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons,
357-365.
Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. D. (2008). How Blogs and Social
Media are Changing Public Relations and the Way it is
Practiced. Public Relations Journal , 2-21.
Running head: EMPLOYEES’ SOCIAL MEDIA CONDUCT 1
Kaleena Springsteen

Daniel Hayes
March 20, 2017
P1- Social media is part of our day to day life connecting with
friends, families and loved ones
P2- Social media can impact negatively in our day to day
interaction, affecting the organization negatively
P3- Social media can taint organizational image if employee’s
accounts are not checked or tamed
P4- Companies need to check employees social media in order
to regulate and help restore good image of the entity
C-Therefore, monitoring employee’s social media will go along
in restoring company image and position.
Technology savvy, the Internet, and social networks have
reduced the world into a global village. Human privacy has been
put to the test with social media key in the sharing of info,
events, and activities across the globe. It has force employers
resolving to use social to monitor its employee’s code of
conduct outside the organizational setting. Arguably, workers
are significant to an organization, and they carry the image or
brand of the entity thus having more power to encourage certain
attitudes and perceptions as to their employer at work and out of
work (Pearson, 2010). It is, therefore, precise for companies to
take good care of their image through monitoring and instilling
discipline against those who violate social media code of
conduct by either acting in a suggestive manner that will have
negative impacts on the entity. However, the view can be stated
otherwise thus prompting the question, should it be legal for
employers to discipline or fire employees by content aired on
social networks even if the activity was not done on the job.
The way employees behave after work or outside the company

setting matters and have a great impact on the company’s brand
image regardless of either it was private or public (Qualman,
2010). As such, companies who are mostly engaged in business
are required to shield their employer by having a frequent
monitor of their worker’s social media code of conduct that
which can indirect or direct ruin the reputation of the company.
A perfect example is a teacher who results to vulgar language in
social media may prompt his or students to view the post and
may have a dire impact on them. It is not easy to have social
media conduct and professional ethics detached because
employee’s behavior may reflect their ethical conduct at work
(Kaplan & Heinlein, 2010).
Therefore, it is prudent to administer discipline and punish
workers who seem not to show right conduct in the social media
content. Some many argue that is not right to go for that option,
stating that it is based on assumptions that employee conduct on
the social media portrays a negative image on the employer’s
side. Qualman 2010) argues that there is exist a master-servant
relationship between the worker and employee thus a servant
portraying bad influence means a rogue employee. Hence, bad
content on employee’s social media impacts negatively on
public admirations against the company.
Unfortunately, there is a common wave followed by most
employees, propagating negative information targeting their
employer. Some of the messages can evoke bad relationship or
taint a bad picture on the employer. Failing to screen
employee’s social media means propagating negative
information about the company or creating division amongst
employees thus the lack of morale (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
It is the jurisdiction of every employer to make sure it monitors
and scrutinize employees to promote a code of respect.
In conclusion, it is the solemn right for employers to defend
their brand image at all times. How they go about concerns them
more, the top management of a company is usually in trouble
whenever something bad about the pops out. A close look on the
employee’s social media guarantees employers of safe

investments and good company reputation.
Reference
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world,
unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media.
Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Pearson, C. (2010). The cost of bad behavior: How incivility is
damaging your business and what to do about it. Human
Resource Management International Digest, 18(6).
Qualman, E. (2010). Socialnomics: How social media
transforms the way we live and do business. John Wiley &
Sons.
The following files have been attached to your feedback
(0 / 1) Presents the Revised Main Argument in Standard Form
Non-Performance - The main argument is either nonexistent or
lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
(0 / 2) Presents a Counterargument in Standard Form
Non-Performance - The counterargument is either nonexistent
or lacks the components described in the assignment
instructions.
(2 / 2) Provides Support for the Premises of the
Counterargument
Distinguished - Provides support for all premises of the
counterargument by comprehensively providing clarification of
the meaning of each premise and supporting evidence. The
supporting evidence provides clear and appropriate reasons for
thinking each premise is true.
(0.5 / 0.5) Explains How The Conclusion of The
Counterargument Follows From its Premises
Distinguished - Clearly and comprehensively explains how the
conclusion of the counterargument follows from the premises.
(1 / 1) Discusses the Primary Points of Disagreement and
Presents an Objection to the Original Argument
Distinguished - Comprehensively discusses the primary points

of disagreement between sincere and intelligent proponents of
both sides and clearly presents a central objection to the
original argument, thoroughly indicating the part of the
argument the objection is aimed at and provides appropriate
supporting evidence for the objection.
(1 / 1) Written Communication: Control of Syntax and
Mechanics
Distinguished - Displays meticulous comprehension and
organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and
grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to
understand.
(0.5 / 0.5) Written Communication: APA Formatting
Distinguished - Accurately uses APA formatting consistently
throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.
(1 / 1) Written Communication: Word Requirement
Distinguished - The length of the paper is equivalent to the
required number of words.
(1 / 1) Written Communication: Resource Requirement
Distinguished - Uses more than the required number of
scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support
ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited
correctly within the body of the assignment.
The following files have been attached to your feedback
(1.76 / 2) Presents a Main Argument for the Thesis
Proficient - Presents a main argument for the thesis in standard
form. The main argument contains few errors in clarity or logic.
(1.5 / 1.5) Supporting Evidence
Distinguished - Provides support for all premises of the
argument by comprehensively explaining the meaning of each
premise and supporting evidence. The supporting evidence
provides clear and appropriate reasons for thinking each
premise is true.
(0.5 / 0.5) Explains How the Conclusion of The Argument
Follows From Its Premises

Distinguished - Clearly and comprehensively explains how the
conclusion of the argument follows from the premises.
(0.5 / 0.5) Written Communication: Control of Syntax and
Mechanics
Distinguished - Displays meticulous comprehension and
organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and
grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to
understand.
(0.5 / 0.5) Written Communication: APA Formatting
Distinguished - Accurately uses APA formatting consistently
throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.
(0.5 / 0.5) Written Communication: Word Requirement
Distinguished - The length of the paper is equivalent to the
required number of words.
(0.5 / 0.5) Written Communication: Resource Requirement
Distinguished - Uses more than the required number of
scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support
ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited
correctly within the body of the assignment.

SOCW 6202 Treatment of AddictionsSPP Treatment Plan Template.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to SOCW 6202 Treatment of AddictionsSPP Treatment Plan Template.docx

Similar to SOCW 6202 Treatment of AddictionsSPP Treatment Plan Template.docx (13)

More from whitneyleman54422

More from whitneyleman54422 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

SOCW 6202 Treatment of AddictionsSPP Treatment Plan Template.docx