Tracing the Cause Backwards

In chapter 15, Epstein explains the different aspects of "cause and effect". One way people can use cause and effect is by tracing the cause backwards to find out the real cause of the effect. According to Epstein the only changeable part of "cause and effect" is the cause. So when people are trying to figure out what is the true cause of a certain problem or result they can go backwards. For example, I was late to my art class last Wednesday because I woke up late, and I woke up late because I stayed up doing homework, and I stayed up doing homework because my manager asked me to stay later at work. So if I went backwards with this cause and effect I would end up blaming my manager for being late to my art class. But I could also keep going backwards and say that my manager made me stay later because one of my coworkers got sick and could not make it to their shift. Then I could blame my coworker or even the person that got her sick. But according to Epstein, we have to draw a line at the closest source of the effect because otherwise we would go too far and the problem would seem completely random.

Mission: Critical

What I found useful from this website is that it is a review of almost everything we have covered so far in the class from the Epstein book. The website is well thought out because it is broken down into main points and smaller bullet points that act as support for the main points. The definition and examples of each different kind of argument and method used in critical thinking are clearly organized and make it helpful when trying to memorize a certain term from the textbook we are using.
I think that this website is better organized than the Epstein textbook because the outline of the chapter and terms is much more clearly laid out than the chapters in "Critical Thinking" by Epstein. The book can be a bit confusing because the difference between each new term or idea is not clearly labeled, so it is difficult to know when the author has switched to a new topic. Also sometimes it's difficult to differentiate the main points from the sub-points .

Cause and Effect

What was useful about the cause and effect website?

I found that the website about cause and effect was useful because it used an every day example with a thorough explanation and break down of the main points of how cause and effect is used. The article started out by introducing the main problem in a step by step pattern. It showed how on small mistake made by the truck drive lead to a big problem involving several other people which included a bicyclists, the drivers of the two cars, and people representing them in court. The article then explains in detail that the cause is the only difference between this situation and others like it. There many different circumstances that could make one person at fault and the others not guilty. The article says that for example we can blame the truck because it made the bicycle swerve into the road, or we can blame the driver that was rear ended because it hit the breaks too suddenly, or we can blame the driver that rear ended the car in front of them because they were speeding.
Overall the article was useful is seeing how common cause and effect is in arguments. Different circumstances lead to different causes but effect always stays the same.

Evaluating an Analogy

According to Epstein, the seven question a person must ask to evaluate an analogy to make sure that it is plausible and strong are:

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

In an earlier post I used an everyday example of reasoning by analogy and I am going to analyze it using Epstein's seven questions. My example  was no matter how long it has been since you last drove, you can never forget how to drive a car because learning how to drive a car is like learning how to ride a bike, once you know how to do it, you will never forget how.

1. Yes, it is an argument. The conclusion is a driver can never forget how to drive. 
2. I compared knowing how to drive a car to knowing how drive a bicycle.
3. The premises are knowing how to drive a car is like knowing how to ride bicycle and you can never forget how to do either one of them once you know how.
4. The similarities between riding a bicycle and driving a car are that they are both forms of transportation, almost anyone can learn both once they are of age, they both have wheels, they are used on roads, they can cause accidents, they are controlled by a person who steers them, they have breaks, they made of metal, they can go fast, they both have pedals, you sit on them, and they are used by people around the world. 
5. Yes, they are both common forms of human transportation that are learned by individuals using a standard set of controls and rules. 
6. Although there are some similarities between the two, cars and bicycles are completely different forms of transportation but in this case the differences are not significant since we arguing about forgetting how to use them.
7. The argument is valid but it is not necessarily good since riding a bike can be learned at a very young age while a person must be at least 15 to start learning how to drive a car so not everyone can relate to this analogy. Also cars are much more expensive than bicycles and this creates a big gap between car owners however this can also be a good argument because we can assume that most people in the world know how to ride a bike so even though they may have never driven a car they can understand that once they learn how they will never forget since they have never forgotten how to ride their bike.

Reasoning by Criteria

The most difficult kind of reasoning I found to understand was reasoning by criteria.  I am confused as to what exactly distinguishes this kind of reasoning with any other kinds of argument since every argument has some kind of criteria or topic that must be met in order to make sense.
According to changingminds.org reasoning by criteria is most helpful when you are trying to argue against something. Once you establish a criteria in an argument it is easy to refute and find the flaws in the premise. Also when you establish the criteria you can judge what will be the best choice to make based on the standard given. "The easier criteria are to accept as reasonable, the less likely it will be that people will question them. Using common values helps this."
For example, having gone to a Catholic high school, I have heard many arguments about whether or not abortion should be legal in this country and the rest of the world. A good way to argue against abortion would be to state common values that both religious and non-religious people could agree on, such as abortion can be dangerous for the mother, if the fetus has a beating heart it is a living being, it is the mother's sole responsibility to do what is right for her unborn child. People who are for the legality of abortion can argue that it is not murder since the fetus is not necessarily a person because it cannot live on its own, there are many situations where it would be more harmful for the mother if she kept the child such as deformities and other health problems.
But the important part of reasoning by criteria is establishing the rules and standards by which the argument can progress to. The person arguing can make their argument stronger by establishing the boundaries that they can follow in order to win the majority of audience.

Reasoning by Analogy

The different kinds of reasoning posted on the instructor's blog are reasoning by analogy, sign reasoning, causal reasoning, reasoning by criteria, reasoning by example, inductive reasoning, and finally deductive reasoning.
The definition of reasoning by analogy according to Epstein is "A comparison becomes reasoning by analogy when it is part of an argument: On one side of the comparison we draw a conclusion, so on the other side we should conclude the same
An example of reasoning by analogy could be "Knowing how to drive is like knowing how to ride a bike, once you learn, you never forget no matter how long it has been since you last drove or rode."
This could be a good argument because the two things being compared are related and are common to most people.
According to the link given on the instructor's blog "Argument by sign asserts that two or more things are so closely related that the presence or absence of one indicates the presence or absence of the other." An example of this could be "It is raining, so there must be clouds in the sky." The two things are very closely related and rain cannot happen without clouds, but this example is somewhat flawed because there can be clouds in the sky without rain. A better example could be "I hear a voice nearby, therefore there is someone else nearby." A voice can only come from another person, like smoke can only come from some kind of flame or fire.
According to the same link, "Argument by cause attempts to establish a cause and effect relationship between two events."For example, sunlight causes heat, therefore heat can be caused by sunlight.
Criteria reasoning are used in logical arguments when a criteria is established and the argument is concluded according to this criteria. For example, a customer walks in the Disney Store and the sales associate asks "how can I help you today?" The customer answers by saying: "Hi, it is my daughter is turning seven this week and I am looking for the perfect gift, her favorite Disney princess is Ariel from the Little Mermaid." The sales associate then says, "Great. If she likes Ariel, then wouldn't she love these new mermaid dolls that swim as soon as the are placed in water?"
Reasoning by example is straight forward and is basically arguing by using examples of similar experiences to convince the audience. For example, my friend wants a to buy a Chihuahua for her four year old daughter, I advise against it by saying "I have a chihuahua and they are great pets for older children, however they are too small and fragile for a small child to play with, mine almost broke one of his tiny paws when he jumped of the couch."
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning in that inductive arguments have premises that assume the conclusion instead of affirming it based on evidence. The outcome is not guaranteed. For example, a friend of mine said she has never broken a bone in her body since she has been alive, therefore she will never break a bone in her body for the rest of her life. This is inductive because she cannot guarantee what can happen to her in the future.
Deductive reasoning are used in logical arguments where both the premises and the conclusion are plausible. For example, all Toyota Prius' are hybrid cars, my uncle owns a Toyota Prius, therefore my uncle owns a hybrid car.

Appeal to Pity

3). Pick one concept, idea or exercise from the assigned reading, that we have no already discussed, that you found useful or interesting, and discuss it.
 Another kind of appeal I found interesting and often used in commercial is the one that makes an audience feel sad or guilty from something that is happening and that they could do stop.
Epstein definition of an appeal to pity is "for example if you feel sorry for poor kids, you should give money to any organization that says it will help them." And according to Epstein this is a bad argument because "it is implausible, since some drug cartels help kids too."
Commercials that have made me feel quite sad recently are the commercials for the ASPCA. The commercial is basically a montage of videos of incredibly cute and sad dogs and cats starring at the camera through the steel bars of the cages while a very melancholic song by Sarah McLachlan plays in the background. Just by looking into their eyes and listening to the slow piano notes of "In the Arms of an Angel" you know immediately that this cannot be ending well for these helpless creatures who have been abandoned and abused by their owners. At the end of the commercial Sarah McLachlan talks to the audience and asks for a small donation to help the ASPCA rescue these animals and help them find permanent homes.
This kind of commercial is guaranteed to stir some kind of emotion in  the minds of all pet owners and animal lovers. It can also bring nostalgia because most of us have grown up with a pet we have loved and seeing all of these different animals we can be reminded of the happy times we have had growing thanks to them. And it will make us want to help in any possible way we can.