Further Discussion

For me I think should have had further been discussed because there were so many different kinds and they I found it so confusing. I read over that concept so much and I thought I knew it getting into the test, but didn’t do as well as I thought I did after reviewing the results. All the different types of fallacies were briefly described in the book, so it was hard to follow the assignments and the examples did not help my understanding. Having us blog about it and having the website to refer to kind of helped but taking the test really showed how much you truly understood the material. I know that fallacies are a main part of arguments because they make them weak or strong. 

       Another concept I felt needed further discussion Epstein's chapter 9 on Concealed Claims. According to Epstein, Euphemism is when a word or phrase that makes something sound better than a neutral description and Dysphemism is when a word or phrase that makes something sound worse than a neutral description. Epstein gives us examples of these concepts, but does not go into depth or detail in how we can apply these concepts or how to use these concepts in words in everyday life. 

Favorite/LeastFavorites

This was my first time taking an online class and it taught me a lot.  My favorite part about the class was being able to work in groups with people from the class. Regardless of how difficult it got when we had to meet up, I liked working in groups. I like meeting new people and working to adapt to the circumstances of each member. I find it useful and that it served as practice for the real world. My least favorite part of this class was that the due date for our homework each week was Saturdays. I would have much preferred it if homework was due Sunday. Another thing that can be improved is having all of the blogs finished in 12 hour intervals.  I understand that this helps us become disciplined and up to date with our deadlines, but it does become difficult. I wanted to be able to do things on my own time by taking an online class. Having to turn in things in 12 hour intervals were tough because of my hectic schedule. I always had to them towards the end of the week. I think it should be up to the students when to do their blogs but still have a due date. 11:59pm worked out fine, but I just again would say that I’d prefer to start on a Monday and have things turned in by Sunday.

What I have learned

I learned the many types of arguments one can make. Arguments can range from deciding which brand is better or making conclusions in more serious matters like business decisions. I now know how to effectively listen and decide. Another thing I picked up from this class was how to counter-argue. I have learned the types of arguments and parts of arguments one can use to argue so I can effectively counter-argue if I chose to do. If I am agreeing or disagreeing with an argument I am able to review both sides of the argument better now I believe.

Lastly, I have learned how to work in groups. The three projects/essays assigned were completed in groups. In our group we were able to designate jobs and break down the assignment. By breaking down the assignment we could figure out when to do what and create deadlines and meeting times to complete the assignment. From this we also learned adaptability because we would have to adapt to each other schedules and the circumstances that followed in the execution of our projects. 

Cause and Effect Website

The Cause and Effect Website gave an introduction to Casual Arguments. Upon reading further into the web site, I understood that the site explained what casual arguments were. Casual arguments are basically made when something occurs because of something else: a cause and an effect.

Casual arguments are similar to inductive arguments. Both use cause and effect. The premise and the claim have no significant difference. However, casual arguments have a significant difference for each party involved.

The web site provided three key factors of a casual argument:

1. How acceptable or demonstrable the implied comparison is

2. How likely the case of causation seems to be

3. How credible the “significant difference” or “only significant commonality” claims are.

The website and its exercises have proven to help me understand casual argument/cause and effect better and make it easier to identify and apply it to my every day arguments and thoughts. 

Cause

Chapter 15 discusses: What is the Cause? This section was about looking at the root causes an argument could be divided into sections to clarify each part of a cause. First, causes and effects discussed the statement “Spot caused me to wake up”. The relationship between Spot and Dick is what the cause was. The second part was about the normal condition, which is the unstated claims that are obvious and plausible. The third part is about particular causes, generalization, and general causes. Particular causes happen in correlation: every time this happens that happens. There was also the section about the cause that precedes the effect. This part pointed out the preceded part of the cause that Spot barked and then Dick woke up. The cause makes a difference was the fifth section. This discussed how sometimes the correlations are not enough there needs to be an “if” involved. The sixth section is overlooking a common cause. The seventh was about tracing the cause backwards which was looking at what caused the dog to bark. The eighth section gave criteria for cause and effect which summarized what is necessary for cause and effect. The ninth section was about what mistakes could be made when evaluating cause and effect: reversing cause and effect or looking to hard for a cause.

Mission Critical

The Mission Critical website was very helpful because it is a review of the past semester’s work. The website serves as a tool that goes over most of the topics that we have discussed in the book with additional topics. Vagueness and ambiguity was the concept that was brought up that I had to clear up. Vagueness and ambiguity can be difficult to understand, but I was able to figure out the differences between these concepts. It is difficult to understand because vagueness and ambiguity seem to have similar definitions.  Something that is vague is defined as something that is general, and unclear.  Something that is ambiguous has the ability to have a variety of different meanings. 

An example of vagueness is shown in this sentence:

That is a hot spot to hang around.

This is an example of vagueness because it is unclear that the location is actually hot in temperature, but in terms of slang it means that the place is a popular place to be.

An example of ambiguity is shown in this sentence:

The grass is always greener on the other side.

This is an example of ambiguity because this can be interpreted in different ways. One, that the grass is a different shade of green on the other side. Two, there is always something better for you. It depends on how you perceive this sentence.

Reasoning by the Law

In Chapter 12 of Epstein, it discusses how Reasoning by Analogy is used in the law. The section explained that in law these type of arguments are the most used because it gives a chance for lawyers to provide details, that are carefully analyzed arguments. SInce laws are vague and not specific it is difficult for the Supreme Court, federal courts, state courts, county courts, and local courts. 
The most common Reasoning by Analogy used in the law is reasoning by example. It is used based on a case for case basis. Edward H. Levi’s An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, discusses how "any case sets a precedent for other cases. By setting a precedent with any law the law becomes more specific based on the ruling of the judge." There are always cases that are later over ruled. The most important case in which this occured was Brown v. The Board of Education. The case allowed the “equal but separate” precedent for many cases until nearly a hundred years later when the case was considered wrong.

Argument by Analogy

Argument by Analogy was the reasoning I had a difficulty with learning. I think I was over thinking what it could mean so I was looking past the simple meaning behind it.If one were to argue by analogy one would claim that certain things share similar characteristics in common. When encountering an analogy, we must analyze whether the analogy is a good argument or not by using these guideline and questions. These are the steps/questions used to help as a guideline in evaluating analogies:

• Is this an argument? What is the conclusion? 
• What is the comparison? 
• What are the premises? (one or both sides of the comparison) 
• What are the similarities
• Can we state the similarities as premises and find a general principle that covers the two sides?
• Does the general principle really apply to both sides? Do the differences matter?
• Is the argument strong or valid? Is it good?

Different Types of Reasoning

Different types of reasoning allow us to have different kinds of effect on individuals with the way we reason. 

1.             Reasoning by analogy draws conclusions from comparing similar things when it is part of an argument. If one thing is one way with the other thing, the same should be for objects of a similar relationship. 


Example:    Premise #1: My friends all sing.

Premise#2: My sisters all sing.

Conclusion: Everyone I know are singers.

2.             Sign reasoning is similar to judging a book by its cover because it draws conclusions due to appearance or other indicators. 

           Example: Parent: You have to be home tonight to do the dishes.

Child: I can’t tonight I have work all day.

Parent: All right, just make sure it’s clean by lunch tomorrow. 

Child: Okay, I’ll do it in the morning.

3.             Causal reasoning uses cause and effect.


Example: Premise #1: I woke up late for school.

Premise#2: I did not have time to eat breakfast this morning.

Conclusion: I was hungry all morning after arriving late to school.

4.             Reasoning by criteria uses established criteria for future conclusions.


Example: Your big sister would want something meaningful and thoughtful. You should make her something.

5.             Reasoning by example uses other valid examples for arguments.

Example: Ron practices dancing everyday. If you want to dance as well as Ron you should practice more.

6.             Inductive reasoning uses past observations to make

conclusions or generalizations, with the probability that it is could be false. 


Example: Premise #1: Dance practice is on Tuesdays.

Premise#2: Today is Monday.

Conclusion: There is no dance practice tonight.

7.          Deductive reasoning is the opposite of inductive reasoning in that it uses generalizations for specific claims. 


Example: Premise #1: There are many attractions in

Disneyland.

Premise#2: The World of Color shows at night.

Conclusion: The Word of Color is one of the many attractions at Disneyland.

Appeal to Fear Exercise 3

When I think of the Appeal to Fear approach and how it is used through advertising, I automatically think about above the influence or anti-smoking commercials. I believe that these advertisements are very powerful and can grab the attention of any average teenager and have them reflect on their habits; I can say that every above the influence advertisement or anti-smoking commercial that I have ever seen has caused me to reflect on my habits, as well as, the habits of my friends. In these advertisements, teenagers are put into fear about ruining their lives, losing themselves, getting a hole in their throat, having damaged lungs, second-handedly hurting the people they love or even strangers around them, being a victim of all sorts of cancers, and of course dying of an early age.

In this particular ad I found (1st picture), a girl is passed out and drawn all over. This presents the conclusion of drug and alcohol abuse. This is a good argument because the premises and conclusion are true based on strong examples given. The next picture is a creative ad that demonstrates how smoking lessens the time you have alive.

Apple Polishing

Throughout chapter 10 in Epstein's book, we learned about the Appeal to Emotion and the different aspects that it is made up of.  One of the concepts that I thought was interesting was Apple Polishing, which is a particular way of using the Appeal to Vanity approach in arguments. Apple Polishing is a type of argument that makes someone feel good. It’s where a person uses flattery, and excessive compliments, in an attempt to win support for their side. In my opinion, apple-polishing is just kissing up. An example of this approach in action is when a good-looking advertiser is selling a new dietary fiber bar or snack to an overweight woman. The advertisement can brown-nose the buyer by telling them that they actually look slimmer and that their product will be beneficial to their amazing figure and will keep them in shape, when in reality the product probably has a lot of sugar and what not and would not help the buyer's diet. The overweight buyer will fall into the sweet talk and spend.

Appeal to Emotion:Pity

Epstein defines Appeal to Emotion as a premise that says you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way.  Breaking down emotional appeal into detail to understand it better, we learn that there are specific ways used to win people over with their emotions. Appeal to Pity caught my attention. When advertisers are trying to sell a product or trying to help a cause, they aim to melt the buyers heart and make them feel bad enough to support their cause or buy their product. We see a lot of this in TV Commercials. A well-known example of an advertisement using the approach of appealing to pity would be an ASPCA commercial. This commercial uses images of abused, hurt, and battered animals that are in desperate need of help. "Arms of an Angel" by Sarah McLachlan also plays as background music and enhances the emotional pity. Using this approach, animal lovers and pet owners can connect and be moved because of what they see; they have pity for these animals and no longer want to see domestic violence and decide to support the cause.

Precise and Vague Generalities

Epstien shows us that there are a lot of quantities between one and all in his example of Precise Generalities. Though we can scale an argument with a low percentage or high percentage of something, we still know nothing about the people or things involved to make certain that an argument is valid or not.

For example, 90% of the Akbayan (Filipino Org) went to CSU Fullerton to participate in Friendship Games. Robin is part of the club Filipino club; therefore Vanessa went to Friendship Games.

This is not valid. Though there’s a high percentage of people that participated in Friendship Games, we know nothing more about Vanessa and how active or interested she was in the club, etc.

In Vague Generalities, you can make generalities without using numbers with words like a lot, almost all, many, etc.

A lot of Akbayan members went to CSU Fullerton to participate in Friendship Games. Robin is part of Akbayan, Robin went to Friendship Games.

Replacing numbers with “a lot” allows us to make the assumption that not many people missed out on Friendship Games.

Lessons from the group assignments

The Critical thinking news and politics group assignment helped with our communication skills and understanding of the critical thinking material. Working together as a group challenges our social interactions with each other. Though it took trial and error to correct our lack of communication, through this experience, our group worked together to work around the circumstances that prevented us from meeting together and forced us to use other outlets of communication such as a facebook group to get share our ideas without one person being out of the loop. Also, the group projects called for one of us to take the initiative and keep track of everyone’s work and make sure that each individual meets a deadline for turning in stuff. Relating the material to real life situations helped me understand what we were learning better. Also, a team member must compile all the work together in one essay, format it, and revise anything that needs work on. 

Valid and Invalid

Valid and invalid arguments were hard to understand but reading the examples helped me a lot with understanding. Invalid and valid arguments use words like: all, some, or no.  These words are used to reason valid arguments. 

There were many ways of doing so.  The two I will be discussing is:

 - The direct way of reasoning with all

The valid argument goes like this:

 All dogs bark. Poochie is a dog. So Larry barks.

The invalid argument goes like this:

 All dogs bark. Poochie barks. So Poochie is a dog.

Chapter 8 of Epstein uses diagrams to prove the validity of the arguments.  To check the validity means to make sure the parts of the diagram over lap and draws a picture that gets the point across to the person trying to understand the argument.

The following image would be what an argument diagram that would be used to check the validity.

http://www.thinkingshop.com/Clarion/logic/images/AProp-4-6.jpg

Compound Claims

In Epstein we are taught the definition, the function, and ways to apply these claims in our arguments. According to the reading, a compound claim is known as an alternate; two combined claims with the words 'or' and 'and' which then transforms into a single claim. In other words, 'two becomes one'.  When comparing this term to grammar, it is practically the same concept as compound sentences, even when using the same words to conjoin the two ideas.  An example of two claims becoming a compound claim:

-I will buy you a slice of cake.

-I will buy you coffee.

When these claims are combined using the word 'and', the compound claim is stating that the person will receive both a slice of cake and a cup of coffee.  When these claims are combined using the word 'or', the compound claim is stating that the person will receive on or the other and not both. These keywords determine the conclusion of the claims.

Chapter 7

Raising Objections

In Epstein, the key term that was presented is counterarguments, or more commonly known as a rebuttal. Counterarguments are often used in conversations and formal arguments. The reason people use counterarguments are usually because in one's opinion, the argument is bad and another reasoning is better. Counterarguments usually come off as interruptions, corrections, or a strong difference in opinion.

According to Epstein there are three ways to refute an argument:

1. Show that at least one of the premises is dubious.

2. Show that the argument isn't valid or strong.

3. Show that the conclusion is false.

The book also describes this refuting as “showing that at least one of several claims is false or dubious, or collectively they are unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them” (Epstein, p. 150).

Refuting an Argument

In Epstein page 149, it states that to directly refute an argument the following has to occur:

•                Show that at least one of the premises is dubious.

•                Show that the argument isn’t valid or strong.

•                Show that the conclusion is false.

An example of this action would be like the following:

Driving on the freeway is useless. The freeway is always busy. Carpool is the fastest lane to use on the freeway, but you can only use the freeway if there are two or more passengers in the car. Therefore, when driving only short distances use the side streets.

You can refute this argument by pointing out that freeways are not always busy. The argument is not very strong because its premises and conclusion are weak. The conclusion is also false. With all these factors the argument can easily be refuted. 

Chapter 6

Contra-positive Claims

The importance and requirements of a contra-positive claim is taught in Chapter 6 of Epstein. Two claims have to be true in order for them to be equivalent to each other. Contra-positive statements are defined as the situation in which a claim and a contra-positive claim are related or similar. Both claims must coincide; either true or both false. 

The following are examples of true claims; a contra-positive statement:

a. Hard working students get good grades.

b. Students that complete all their homework and class work assignments will get good grades.

The following are examples of contra-positive statements including a sufficient condition; which the first claim is sufficient for the second claim. (There are 4 different types of conditions:

Direct, indirect, affirming the consequent, and denying the antecedent)

a.     Eileen always dips eats pizza with ranch.  If Eileen is eating pizza, she is eating ranch.

Reasoning with “OR” claims

No matter how many or’s are in the argument, only one may be the right conclusion. A reader must narrow down all the possibilities to get the correct conclusion. By determining which ones are most valid, it makes it easier to find the conclusion.

The couple decided they were either going to go out on a date or stay in depending on the weather, but because storm clouds were coming in, they decided to stay in and avoid the rain.

By reasoning with “OR”, the argument is valid because there is no way the premise to be true and the conclusion false. The premise was the first sentence about where the party should occur. The conclusion stated that the party would be celebrated in their backyard.

Bad Appeal to Common Belief

Chapter 5 of Epstein teaches us about how bad appeals are used and applied in our daily lives. Bad appeal to common belief is defined as accepting a claim to be true only after seeing that other people believe the claim as well. In modern terms, it’s following the “hype,” or in other terms falling for the fad of the time. A common term or known phrase that is often used is 'Hopping the bandwagon or getting on that train'. The bad appeal to common belief is a popular mistake that affects the way we reason or make opinions on claims.  This mistake normally occurs when people are under the pressure of their peers, role models, or people that hold high credibility.  People and sports are a perfect example of hoping on the bandwagon.  A lot of people do not favor a team unless the team is on a winning streak. They join the fanbase of a sports team only because everyone else is supporting them and not solely on their own opinion.

Advertisement

This advertisement is implying that Verizon is more reliable than AT & T and is used to persuade opinion on which service to go to. According to Epstein, the 3 choices we can make about whether to believe a claim are: accept the claim is true, reject the claim as false, or suspend judgment. Someone who thinks about cost over quality could suspend judgement because they feel a mobile device is unnecessary or if both services are out of their price range and could go to another server like Metro PCS or T-Mobile. We accept or reject claims from personal experiences. Though I have AT & T, I can accept this claim to be true because I experience drop calls sometimes and also because my friends who have Verizon have service in places I don’t a lot of the time.

We also accept or reject claims from other sources. The claim is made by Verizon, a large corporation considered to be one of the best in the nation. Loyal customers can accept the claim because Internet and phone service is considered Verizon’s expertise. We would reject the claim if the reputable authority has reason to mislead consumers. The ad was not found in a reputable journal or reference, so we could reject the claim based on the fact it does not come from a dependable source. We can reject the claim because advertisements are not usually reliable and have only one motive and that is to get a contract with Verizon. 

Repairing an Argument

Lady Gaga is a top 40 singers. Lady Gaga is Kent’s favorite artist.

There is no rational argument in these statements. The premise is Lady Gaga is a top 40 singer and that she is Kent’s favorite singer. There is no conclusion to this argument. If we were to add, “Lady Gaga stands up for equality and going outside social norms.” A conclusion would be given that makes the first two statements more understandable. We could also delete the first sentence because this premise is not significant to the confirming the conclusion. It is important to know how to distinguish if an argument needs to be repaired and how to fix it. That is how we are able to make more effective arguments and avoid being wrong. The argument can become strong or valid by repairing the argument. A premise or conclusion is added. The premise has to be plausible and would seem plausible to others. Also, the premise is more plausible than the conclusion.

Inferring and Implying

This section was a tad confusing for me to comprehend, but the reviewing and going through the exercises helped me understand it better. By inferring and implying someone could be leaving out information that could make or break your argument. According to Epstein, implying is when someone leaves a conclusion unsaid. Inferring is saying something and letting the mind understand it in the wrong or right way. By inferring and implying the meaning can be lost in the argument.

“Ivan can play the piano like Mozart” implies that Ivan plays the piano really well.

“Tina is good at math” infers ideas like Tina is smart or Tina gets good grades.

If we were to imply or infer, the information given must offer an obvious conclusion. The person taking in your argument must have an equal understanding of the subject and not jump into conclusions from your statements. People need to be on the same page.