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.

Bad appeal to common belief

Bad appeal to common belief is a very common fallacy. If most people in a group believe a claim is true then it is true. A relatable example for this kind of fallacy is if all or a majority of the girls in a group think joining a sorority is necessary in college then it must be true. Just because the majority or all the girls in a group think going Greek is necessary in college doesn’t mean it’s the same for everyone. A common belief fallacy doesn’t make a statement true. It has a majority on opinion. The majority opinion doesn’t always tell the truth. Different answers can come out of it depending on the group. For example, if we bring up Greek life to another set of girls and not all of him thinks Greek life is necessary in college the statement becomes a fallacy. Here’s example of a bad appeal to common belief fallacy:

Jack will tell Jill “nothing is wrong with drinking. Ask Jess, or anyone here. Drinking is fine.”

This is a statement at a party is sometimes used to peer pressure others into drinking. Just because Jack, Jill, and Jess are at a party doesn’t mean everyone is going to be okay with drinking. Some people have fun just being sober.

Analyzing an Argument Excercise.

Exercise Number 2

1. I’m on my way to school.

2. I left five minutes late.

3. Traffic is heavy.

4. Therefore, I’ll be late for class.

5. So I might as well stop and get breakfast.

Exercise number 2 is an argument. The conclusion is that I will be late for class, even if I stop for breakfast. Possible additional premises that would be needed could be before sentence 5. I would add a statement that would explain why being late class after eating breakfast is no different from going straight to class already late. This would add another justification to have breakfast. The sub-arguments in this argument are sentences 1, 2, and 3. Sentences 1, 2, and 3 are independent sub-arguments.

I believe this is a good argument because it is straightforward and the premise was clear and it made the conclusion valid, but the argument may have been irrational since it is justified with a weak premise.

I found this argument useful because it is an example that is very relatable. Since attendance in college isn’t mandatory. Students show up if they want to and make everyday decisions about whether going to class is worth their time. The student in exercise number 2 might have felt like any common college student would. “I’ve already missed a potion of the class, it’s already too late.” Breaking down an argument helps with identifying the key components found in all arguments. This helps with figuring out the validity and effectiveness of the argument.

The Tests for an Argument to Be good.

There are three ways to test out an argument to determine whether or not the argument is considered to be "good".  From reading Epstein's "Critical Thinking", the three tests that were mentioned are:

1. The premises are plausible, easily to understand,

2. The premises are more plausible than the conclusion, easier to comprehend and more sensible than the conclusion.

3. The argument is valid or strong. An example of a good argument must be strongly developed and have valid reasons to back it up.

Good arguments can either be considered strong or valid arguments. Sometimes arguments that fall under "strong arguments" can be seen as a better argument than a "valid argument" because it carries reasons in its statement. Strong arguments are based on pure opinion and feeling. Although strong arguments are only plausible and not completely true, they can seem that way. An example of a good argument is: "Wine is good for your cardiovascular health." This is a good argument because it is plausible and an opinion which can lead to a conclusion of "People drink wine for their health."

Strong Vs. Valid Arguments

Arguments are inevitable due to differing perspectives and feelings people have towards something or a situation. It’s impossible to find two people who are one in the same. Epstein teaches us in chapter three that arguments are valid or successful when the conclusion is false, in which there is no possible way for the premises to be true. To determine an argument to be strong, its premise has a possibility of being true, but its conclusion is still leading to be false. Strong arguments are harder to prove wrong because they are more deeply rooted with reasons. Arguments are strong because the statements before the conclusion are true. A valid argument is also true, but is more one-sided in its statement.

Strong argument: Wine restricts blood vessels and in your capillaries increasing blood flow. It is fortified with fruits and gives people vitamin C, as well as, has crabs, which can give people energy. Drinking wine is healthy.

Valid argument: Wine is good for your cardiovascular system. So maybe you will be healthier if you drink wine. 

Leaders and Decisions

In reading Group Communications I learned that there are different types of leaders that can influence a group. The leader is in control of a group in making decisions and having the most influence over group members. The type of leader determines how the group will come together to work at their goals. A good way to understand the different types of leaders is to apply them to some of the world leaders of the past and today.

President Barack Obama leads the United States. He works closely with his Cabinet to determine what direction he wishes the government to move in, as well as, working with leaders in the Senate and House to achieve a desired goal. The United States democracy is a mixture of consultative and participative leadership.

The Queen in a constitutional monarchy leads Britain. She is more of a figurehead than a political leader. Though she has some authority in her land, she does not directly make laws or enforce them showing a laissez’-faire leadership.

Adolf Hitler is a perfect example of an authoritarian leader. He called all of the shots and got hundreds of thousands to follow him on their own free will. Hitler exemplifies dictatorship such as that in North Korea, a communist society. North Korea’s President or “supreme ruler,” Kim Jong-il, makes all decisions for North Korea. Although authoritarian leaders get to the point with decisions, they are one-sided and uninterested in what the people want.

In many of the organizations and clubs I have been in I have noticed that a democratic kind of government has always been shown and has proven to be effective in the growth of each organizations. I have also witnessed that when leaders become authoritarian or fall into a laissez-faire type of leadership, the members become either uninterested or the organization hinders in expansion. 


Every leader has his or her own way of leading a country, a society, or group. Nonetheless, each leader falls into a type of leadership as mentioned in the Group Communications. 

Critical Thinking Traps

The Essential Guide to Group Communications made me realize how I fall into the traps that hinder my critical thinking skills in-group communication. A problem that I come across as a critical thinker is when I make the assumption that my answer is wrong and that’s what leads me to sit quiet and listen to other answers. I should speak up because it adds to the classroom exercise of understanding all sides to a topic and understanding someone’s reasoning in developing their answer. Accepting communication at face value is when people trust other people’s answers and leave it as it not going further into an argument or the topic. This is something I need to work on as a critical thinker. In my opinion, listening is not always a bad thing and sharing your thoughts with the class is not always necessary, but if there is something that was not brought up yet people should speak up. It never hurts to try and only good can come out of it with understanding the topic or question better. 

Vague and Ambiguous Sentences.

A sentence is vague when it lacks detail and someone is left unclear of the speaker's message. Vague sentences are very common in conversation. People may intentionally be vague to keep conversations going through a series of questions and answers. School just started and I ask people questions like "how have you been?" or "how was your summer?" I've heard "I'm fine," or "summer was good" plenty of times. Many people never seem to give detail right away. Sometimes I perceive it to be like some sort of test to see whether you really care to hear more or not. This reminds me of facebook. People call for attention all the time with vague sentences like, “I’m having a bad day.” People can either choose to comment the person show concern and ask what’s wrong and ask for more details, cheer them up, or scroll past it. Vague sentences cause us to put in more effort to find answers.