Interesting Concept

A concept from this semester that I found useful and interesting was about Loaded Questions. The definition of a loaded question is “a question that conceals a dubious claim that should be argued for rather than assumed.” To ask a loaded question is to ask a question almost offensively; to the point where the recipient of the question does not know how to respond. An example of a loaded question would be “Are you going to stop smoking before it kills you?” or “When are you going to start listening to me?” I found this interesting because I believe our society both asks loaded questions and uses them in advertisements frequently. When asking a question, the person feels obligated and pressured into answering the question in order to please the person who is asking it, instead of being genuine and truthful. In conclusion, asking loaded questions may lead us to hear what we want to hear; however, it may be an untruthful statement.

Likes and Dislikes

My favorite part about this class was having the ability to work at my own pace and learn on my own. Although some points were hard to fully comprehend on my own, it was a refreshing experience to learn on my own time and leisure. I would also gain a better understanding of the complex concepts by reading other people’s blogs, which was incredibly helpful. It was also reassuring to know that others in my section did not fully comprehend a topic that I had difficulty with as well. My least favorite part about the class was the textbook. Personally, I felt the textbook did not do a thorough job at explaining a large portion of the concepts, and oftentimes I had to look up the concepts on the internet in order to gain a better understanding. This can be improved by either swapping the textbook with one that does a more efficient job at explanations or to add another textbook that can help in explaining the concepts in various ways.

What I've Learned

Over the course of the semester, I’ve learned much about critical thinking and how to apply these concepts to every day conversations. To be completely honest, I never knew the structure or proper form of an argument, or how to analyze the argument as valid or weak. Through the course of the semester, I learned how to depict an argument and validate the strength of an argument, as well as when and why to reject an argument. I also learned the importance of structured and logically reasoning, which is a vital key to argument and advocacy. Before this class I was unaware of the importance of supporting evidence and valid claims that should be a part of the argumentation process. I also learned about several fallacies and common misconceptions when analyzing arguments. Without this knowledge, I would be inexperienced in argumentation and have to work much harder to prove my point.

Interesting Concept

An interesting concept I read from this weeks lesson was Reversing Cause and Effect. Reversing Cause and Effect is one of the two way ones can mistake in evaluating a claim. To reverse cause and effect, one mistakenly believes that a cause caused the effect, but really there is no evidence or good reason to believe so. For example, take the tale “An apple a day keeps the doctor away, that’s why I’m never sick.” This is a well known phrase, and the underlying message is if you eat one apple a day, you will be healthy and will not become sick. However, there is no good reason to believe this is true. Of course, eating an apple a day is good for your diet and will benefit your health, but eating an apple will not fight off all of the infection and/or bacteria that one can inherit from another person who is sick. They are most likely never sick because they eat a well balanced diet in general, which as result helped their immune system strengthen, which is most likely why they are never sick.

Mission Critical Website

The topic that I found most interesting on the Mission Critical Website was the Introduction to Conditional Arguments page. The page explains that “if” and “then” are most likely always present in conditional arguments; where as “if” is the antecedent, and “then” is the consequent. Also, the website states that “the first premise established the condition--the relationship between the antecedent and the consequent.” The antecedent and the consequent can also be interchangeable, as long as the claim starts with “if.” For example, a) “If I don’t go grocery shopping, I won’t have food to eat,” and b) “I won’t have food to eat if I don’t go grocery shopping.” Both sentences contain the same words and hold the same meaning; only the wording varies. When dealing the Conditional Arguments, it is important to have both the antecedent and the consequent. If a claim has only one of the two, the validity and comprehension of the claim will be faulty.

Cause and Effect Website

I found the Cause and Effect Website very useful. Although it reviewed Inductive reasoning and Casual Arguments, which we have already read about, it personally helped me comprehend the dynamics of the two. It gives an example about who is to blame for the an accident; a bicyclist who swerved into the traffic lane to maneuver over a parked car, or the car that slammed on it’s breaks to avoid hitting the bicyclist, which the following the car hits due to sudden braking. Because this argument deals with causation, the reading describes the two rules of dealing with causation: 1) “The cause must precede the event in time” and 2) “Even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation.” A strong correlation can be faulty because coincidences and reversed causation are still possibilities. These two rules are vital when critically thinking, because there are many variations that are possible, which can alter the situation dramatically. If there is not a fully comprehension of the situation that deals with causation, it is impossible to make an accurate decision. That is why in the example provided on the website, the case that involved bicyclist and the car that had to slam on its breaks had to go to court in order to see who was to blame.

Difficult to Understand

One concept that I found difficult to understand was Sign Reasoning. When you use Sign Reasoning, one assumes that one event is the indicator of another event that is to follow. For example, many people believe that if they walk under a latter, break glass, or have a black cat cross your path, you will have bad luck. There has never been any reliable research done that proves any of these methods liable, however, most of the population believes these old wise tails and go out of their way to avoid doing these things. Also, when people wake up with a sore throat, they automatically assume they are getting sick and are getting a cold. The reasoning of this concept, is due to the fact that when you are sick, your throat is sore; therefore, a slightly sore throat is an indicator that you will be sick soon,. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=sign+reasoning&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Interesting Concept

Something interesting that I found in the reading was the section about Judging Analogies. When judging an analogy, it’s important to hear both sides of the story before making your decision. If you only hear one side of the story, the statement is “too vague to use as a premise.” After both sides of the story are stated, then one needs to find the general principle from both sides. With the general principle clearly stated, then one is to state their premises that support their conclusion. If the premises do not support the conclusion, or are not valid, then the analogy will not be considered valid. I feel as if most people apply these steps when they are caught in the middle of a dispute between friends, family, ect. It is always important to hear both sides of the story, or else you can be drawing a conclusion of false premises.

Interesting Concept

An interesting concept that I read in Chapter 10 and did not previously discuss is the Appeal to Spite. The Epstein text explains this appeal as “‘You shouldn’t help anyone who has refused to help you (recently),’” (193). An example of an appeal to spite would be “I’m not going to help Jim do his homework because he wouldn’t help me unload the groceries yesterday.” They do not want to do Jim a favor, because they do not feel as if they owe it to Jim to help him. However, Jim may have been busy, or physically incapable to help unload the groceries; however, just because they did not get help, they feel as if Jim does not deserve help as well. This is an immature and unreliable tactic, which unnecessarily punishes others. This appeal also encourages the “principle that two rights make a right,” (193). Obviously, we all know that this principle is not valid or benefit one person. However, many of those who hold grudges abuse this principle often.

Page 195, #3

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.michaelshouse.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/friends_type.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.michaelshouse.com/blog/methamphetamine-ads-need-to-make-an-impact/&usg=__QwhGted12aRnkDUYSj0oJed6mGg=&h=460&w=1000&sz=604&hl=en&start=4&zoom=1&tbnid=KvpS3jWYZeEpXM:&tbnh=69&tbnw=149&prev=/images%3Fq%3Danti-drug%2Badvertisements%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1050%26bih%3D576%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1

I chose to find an advertisement that uses appeal to fear. I believe this is a good argument because the advertisement is advertising the dangers of meth, which is a beneficial message to the community. Many times the dangers of meth are overlooked; however, meth is one of the leading causes in teenage deaths in America. In the advertisement, the two girls look unappealing with greasy hair and dark eyes, which plays into the fear factor. The advertisement also communicates clearly that just from sharing a needle, you can contract a deadly disease. One of the factors that I feel contributes a large portion of the fear factor is the white text box that reads “Meth. Not even once.” It makes clear that even if you try meth just once, you have a high chance in contracting a disease and turning your world upside down. With advertisements like these, I feel they communicate an important message that makes an impact.

Appeal to Emotion

The Epstein text states that the Appeal to Emotion is “do[es] and should play a role in our reasoning” (191). I agree that Appeal to Emotion should play an important role, because when making decisions without considering emotion, decisions can be harmful and detrimental to others. The Appeal to Emotion has various appeals that apply to different aspects of emotions; one that appealed to me the most was appeal to pity. This appealed to me the most because I feel as if it is most prevalent in our society. Appeal to Pity targets one’s pity and empathy towards others. An example of this that I personally see often on television are the infomercials that try to encourage the community to donate money towards children in third world countries or animals who are in a pound or other harmful setting. In these commercials, viewers see children and animals in dirty and unfit environments, where they are scavenging for food and shelter. Usually both the animals and children are unnaturally skinny and there is sad, depressing music playing. A celebrity or well known public figure is narrating the commercial, in attempt to make the public feel sorry for the animals and children.

Chapter 8

In reading Chapter 8, I learned much about how important certain wording is in a conversation and when making a claim. It also taught me how to raise my awareness to this facts when someone is making a claim at me as well. The first word that can communicate the wrong message is the word “all.” According to it’s definition,  “All means ‘Every single one, no exceptions.’ Sometimes all is meant as ‘Every single one, and there is at least one.’ Which reading is best may depend on the argument.” Many people misuse “all” and use it frequently in daily conversations. Another word that has a vague meaning is “some.” “Some means ‘At least one.’ Sometimes some is meant as ‘At least one, but not all.’” People oftentimes people say “some” and really have no idea what quantity they are actually referring to. It is important to communicate exactly what amount and quantity when trying to make a valid claim.

Loaded Questions

A topic that we have lightly discussed thus far into the reading is the “Loaded Questions” section. The definition of a Loaded Question is “a question that conceals a dubious claim that should be argued for rather than assumed.” To ask a loaded question is to ask a question almost offensively; to the point where the recipient of the question does not know how to respond. An example of a loaded question would be “Are you going to stop smoking before it kills you?” or “When are you going to start listening to me?” After reading about loaded questions on this websitehttp://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-distract-loadquest.htm, it explained to me that loaded questions also communicate that the speaker is making an assumption when asking the question. Loaded questions can be often times be considered rude and inappropriate, especially in certain settings and locations, as well as who is asking it.

Major Assignments

Now that we have done our second major assignment, I believe it has been beneficial to do a project with a group of people instead of just by yourself. Because this is also an online class, it was nice to talk to other people about your feelings towards the class and if you had any questions. When talking to other people in person about the material in the book it can be easier to understand and section if your struggling with it or have questions in general. Through the projects, I’ve learned much about claims in advertising and all of the flaws that can be out there. There are many different claims and tactics that people can put into their advertising and you would never notice it until you really paid attention and looked at it. Through this assignments I learned to look closer into what you see both in magazines and online.

Chapter 7

While reading Chapter 7, I learned a number of techniques about how to counter-argue. One of the first concepts I read about was explaining the three possible ways to refute an argument. The first one is to prove that at least one of the premises is false. If one of the premises is false, the argument has a slim chance of being strong or valid. The second method is to prove that the argument is weak; usually this is done because the claim is following false premises. The last step is to prove that the conclusion is false. This chapter also explains how to indirectly refute an argument. To indirectly refute an argument, you need to “reduce to the absurd,” which means to first prove that a premise is false, or to prove that all of the premises are false. If all of the premises are false, the claim is obviously false, and under this method, absurd.

Interesting Concept

An interesting concept I read about in Chapter 6 was about “Valid and Weak Forms of Arguments Using Conditionals.” Under this section, it explains that if you are given two true premises, there is no way that the concluding argument is not valid. For example, “If Suzy buys a cat, then she will need to buy cat food. Suzy bought a cat. So she needs to buy cat food.” There is no way that Suzy can buy a cat and not have to buy cat food, so this claim is valid. It is impossible that the premises are false and do not follow the clam. In addition, the example is set up in the form that all valid arguments are set up. The form that the example follows is “ If A, then B. A. So B. This makes sense because if the argument was set up in any other fashion, the argument would most likely be invalid due to the format and context of the claim.

Chapter 6

While reading chapter 6, I learned about how to form various claims and arguments, all of which communicate a different message. One of the first concepts I read about was “Compound Claims and ‘Or’ Claims.” These are claims that personally I know I encounter on a daily basis. An example of an “or” claim would be “Sarah is either going to class or is going to sleep in.” Sarah is going to do either one of these things, but not both. Both options have their own pros and cons, and it’s up to Sarah to make the decision. Another concept I read about in the chapter was about “Contrapositive Claims.” These express two claims, in which both the original claim and contrapositive are true. An example of a contrapositive claim would be “If you go to class, then you’ll get a good grade. If you don’t go to class, you won’t get a good grade.” Both claims are true; but approach opposite scenarios.

Interesting Concept

A topic that was not previously discussed in the reading that I found interesting was in Chapter 4 Section B: The Principle of Rational Discussion. In this section, it gives the rules in order to have a rational conversation/argument, which was insightful. The most obvious yet most helpful statement in this section read “...you might find yourself with someone who wants to reason well but just can’t seem to follow an argument.” I’m sure almost anyone has encountered these types of people, who make pointless claims yet still attempt to argue despite the argument being ineffective. As the book recommends, if you ever find yourself in one of those pointless arguments, it’s better to “agree to disagree” and move on. This section also goes over considering a person who is emotionally invested, overly emotional, and those who “intend not to reason well.” All of these characters are flawed in holding a sufficient and suffice argument.

Advertising on the Internet

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.trendhunter.com/images/phpthumbnails/20217_1_468.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/mario-testino-obsessed-by-you&h=468&w=468&sz=26&tbnid=UUcEOcNUJPCz2M:&tbnh=128&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dperfume%2Bads&zoom=1&q=perfume+ads&hl=en&usg=__peYt1pJ9N-lQfreR7aX1WOerP1s=&sa=X&ei=FhSkTPbaKoL68Abq14yQCg&ved=0CCMQ9QEwAA

As most of us know, companies around the world use advertising scams in order to sell their product. Companies use sex appeal, popular demand, and appeal images that often times are irrelevant to the product, in order to make the most amount of money possible. In this ad for a cologne “Diamonds,” there is an attractive male with women grabbing for him; he has a bodyguard, and appears to be some sort of super celebrity. Although he is obviously not an award winning actor, this ad sells that fact, with his grin on his face and his clothing. This brand is emitting the message that if you wear this cologne, you will shadow this man; women will flock to you, you will be incredibly handsome, and you will attain fame, fashion, and fortune. Although it is obvious that a cologne cannot in any way make any of these things happen, this advertisement emits that image. This happens to be an immensely popular cologne, and I’m sure advertisement had much to do with that.

Repairing Arguments

In the Epstein text, the author explains that some arguments are strong and valid, they just need an additional premise in order to make it completely clear. Without a plausible premise, the argument cannot be considered strong. Without a strong argument, the statement is ineffective. An example of an argument that lacks a plausible premise is:
“You should take a multivitamin everyday. They’re good for you.”
This statement is true; multivitamins are good for you. But how? “Because they’re good for you” is too vague. The first sentence of this example needs a plausible premise and support in order to make it a strong argument. If a sentence such as “The body cannot naturally produce some vitamins that are important for your body, which you can receive through a multivitamin” was inserted into this example, it would become a strong argument because it is explaining exactly why you should take a multivitamin daily.