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.