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.

Appeal to Fear

Exercise #3: According to Epstein "Appealing to fear is a way politicians and advertisers manipulate people" by making them feel scared of the consequences they may face if they do not follow the advertiser's advice or directions.
An example of this are the recent commercials for All State Insurance. They are a series of commercials starring the same actor. The actor poses as the dangers every car owner may face. In one commercial he pretends to be a teenage girl driving a big pink truck in what seems to be a parking lot of a shopping mall. The teenage girl is on the phone with a friend and finds out that a boy she likes kissed her friend. This makes her emotionally distraught and so the actor dramatizes this situation and drives the pink truck into a parked car. He then explains that with cut-rate insurance the owner of the parked car will have to pay for the damages themselves because they are not covered. All State will cover these kinds of accidents and apparently any other kind of damages.
This is an example of appealing to fear because people watching the commercial will realize that this could happen to them and their insurance will probably not cover the damages. They will be scared by the fact that they will have to pay thousands of dollars in damages for an accident they had nothing to do with. Because of these fears and worries they will switch to All State and feel at ease.

Appeal to Emotion

 According to Epstein "an appeal to emotion in an argument is just a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way."
In other words an argument can appeal to your emotions by making you, for example, feel sad, happy, guilty, or happy. By making you feel a certain way they will get you to act upon those emotions and persuade you to do something about how you are feeling.
Epstein touches upon different types of appeals to emotion. The ones who discussed were appeal to fear, appeal to spite, arguments that "call in your debts", feel-good arguments, appeal to vanity, and wishful thinking.
The one I found most interesting was an argument with an appeal to vanity because it seems to be the most common one used in commercials. A famous example of commercials that appeal to the audience's vanity are L'oreal commercials. At the end of each commercial the model leading looks into the camera, smiles, and says "because you're worth it." L'oreal has been using their trademark phrase for quite a long time and it is used convince their future customers that they deserve to be using L'oreal's quality products. And this is an example of appeal to vanity because Epstein defined this as "our wanting to feel good about ourselves." According to L'oreal a woman should use their makeup and other cosmetic products they are worth the price and time. They deserve to look good and be happy. This tactic seems to be most prominent in commercials targeted at a female audience. I think that this is both a bad and good way to convince someone. I think it is bad because it seems more superficial than anything and only leads to selfishness instead of helping society. I also think it is a good tactic because everyone deserves to treat themselves once in a while and it's important to remind those who don't have much time for themselves.

Reasoning in a Chain and the Slippery Slope

One of the concepts that we have learned so far that I believe needs a bit more explanation is the fine line between reasoning in a chain and the slippery slope. According to Epstein reasoning in a chain usually makes a good good argument if the claims and premises make sense and are plausible. An example could be "If I don't get the brakes of my car fixed, I will not be able to go to school tomorrow. If I don't go to school tomorrow then I will miss my philosophy midterm and fail the class. So if I don't get the brakes of my car fixed now I will fail my philosophy midterm. This would be a reasonable argument because the premises and the conclusion are plausible. However these chain arguments can quickly turn into slippery slope which are bad arguments. For example if the same argument turned to "If I don't get the brakes of my car fixed, I will not be able to go to school tomorrow. If I don't go to school tomorrow I will miss my philosophy midterm and fail the class. If I fail my philosophy midterm I will never get into the animation program. And If I don't get into the program I will drop out of school and become a failure. So if I don't get the brakes of my car fixed I will be a loser."
According to a website about slippery slope arguments by Rick Arlikov, "the slippery slope argument is clearly invalid if it is meant to be a point of logic, for it does not follow that "if b is an exception to A, then no part of A is true." The slippery slope cannot be used logically because it does not follow the rules of a good argument.
http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/slope.htm

News and Politics

I found that our first assignment about news and politics was helpful in breaking down editorials. It helped me differentiate the writer's argument from their opposing view. It also helped me in understanding what the editorial's main claim was and how they used details and facts to support their view. I also noticed that in order to make a good argument and to win over the audience, a good writer states facts from both sides of the argument. They do not force their view onto the reader rather they state the facts the way they are and make the readers think for themselves based on those supporting details. Finally I learned that not all articles or editorials from major news websites are right. It's important to analyze what we read thoroughly to understand what the writer is trying to convey. It is the reader's choice whether they think the article is correct and is worth standing for. This is why the project was useful. It helped me apply Epstein's teaching to every day life and current events.

Chapter 8

In Chapter 8,  I learned about general claims and their contradictory. General claims are vague arguments that have little precision or detail. They most commonly use the words "all" and "some". These arguments leave out a lot of important details that could support or refute their claim.  For example, my English professor last semester said during one of his random discussions "all smart women can change the oil of their own car. My daughter knows how to change the oil of her car. Therefore my daughter is a smart woman." According to Epstein "all" means every single one, no exceptions. But my professor's argument was bad because it is too general to be plausible. Just because his daughter knows how to change the oil of her car it does not mean that she is knowledgeable about everything. Being able to change the oil of a car could make you knowledgeable about cars but it does not make you an expert either. A woman could know how to change the oil in her car but that could be because someone taught her and not because she knows quantum physics.
The contradictory phrases of the word "all" are "some are not" and "not every". For the word "some", the opposites would be "no", "all are not", and "not even one". The contradictory of my professors argument could be "Not every smart woman can change the oil of their own car..."

Reasoning in a Chain

In chapter six, Epstein talks about the different kinds of reasoning. One them is reasoning in a chain with conditional which means "If A, then B. If B, then C. So if A, then C. An real life example of a chain reasoning could be if I do not finish my homework, then I will fail my art class. If I fail my art class I will not be accepted into the animation program. So if I do not finish my homework, I will not be accepted into the animation program.
In this section, Epstein also explains what the "slippery slope" is. The slippery slope argument "is a bad argument that uses a chain of conditionals, at least one of which is false or dubious." So if I changed one of my claims in my reasoning to "If I fail my art class, then I will be the biggest failure at school." my reasoning would be a slippery slope argument because the last part is not necessarily true and does not make sense. This would also make my argument bad.

Chapter 7: Counterarguments

In chapter 7, Epstein introduces how arguments can be refuted and contradicted. The first point in the chapter is "Raising Objections". This talks about how every claim can raise an objection. For example, last Christmas my brother tried to convince my parents to buy him a Playstation 3. Their conversation went something like this:
Brother: We should get a PS3 this Christmas. It would make a great present for the whole family.
Parents: We already have a Wii and the PS3 costs at least $300. (objection)
Brother: Yes, but the PS3 has a Blue Ray player. (objection)
Parents: We don't need that we already have a DVD player. (objection)
Brother: But Blue Rays have much better sound and picture, plus PS3 games have amazing graphics. (objection)
Parents: Blue Rays are much more expensive and so are the games. The system plus the game would cost a fortune in the end. (objection)
Brother: We can rent the Blue Rays on Netflix for almost nothing. (objection)
I've earned good grades this year and we could get games like Rock Band so the whole family can play and have fun. (answer)
Parents: We'll think about it.
According to Epstein, this conversation would also be an example of refuting an argument directly. My parents gave points to refute each of my brother's reasons and vice versa.

Chapter 6: Compound Claims

In chapter 6, Epstein explains what compounds claims are, the different kinds that can be used, and how each kind is used.
A compound claim usually has two or more claims attached by a connective, which are words such as "or", "if, then", and "and". But just because a claim is composed of two or more claims it does not make necessarily make it a compound. For example, Emily uses public transportation because she does not have a car. According to Epstein this would not be a compound claim due to the fact that the word "because" is an indicator making this an argument and not a claim.
An example of a compound claim could be "If the sun is out or the weather is warm, we will go to the beach." And its negation or contradictory claim would be "If the sun is not out and the weather is not warm, we will not go to the beach." Epstein explains that when "or" is negated in a claim it becomes "and". Also if each claim in this compound claim were simplified to A, B, and C, their negation would be "not A", "not B", and "not C".

Inferring and Implying

In Chapter 4, "Repairing Arguments", Epstein also explains the meanings of the words inferring and implying. He uses several examples to differentiate the two and how they correspond. According to the Epstein: "when someone leaves a conclusion unsaid, he or she is implying the conclusion. When you decide that an unstated claim is the conclusion, you are inferring that claim. We can also say someone is implying a claim if in context it's clear he or she believes the claim. In that case we infer that the person believes the claim."
For example my little brother once told me: "I will never buy Hello Kitty stuff because it's for girls!" By saying this he is implying that boys in general should not buy Hello Kitty products because girls are the target customer and boys are should not wear or play with things that are not made for them. And this is also what I have inferred from his remark.
Epstein also explains that inferring and implying can be risky or dangerous when it comes to arguing. Since everyone as different views and opinions vague claims can lead to misunderstandings. People reading these vague arguments can jump to conclusion about what the arguer is really trying to say making things more complicated. Arguments are always better when they are more explicit and details so that the audience can have a clear understanding of the arguer's side.

Advertising and the Internet

One of the most popular advertisements I come across on celebrity gossip websites such as Popsugar.com and people.com are ads about weight loss and diet programs. The most successful one it seems is Weight Watchers. They have had many celebrity spokespersons and their most recent one is Jennifer Hudson who is an American Idol winner and successful actress. Jennifer Hudson has been known for her fuller and curvier figure and admired by many women for teaching them to appreciate their body the way it is. However through the Weight Watchers advertisements Jennifer tells her audience that she dropped from a size 14 to a size 6.
According to Epstein there are several ways in accepting and rejecting claims. One of them is personal experience and this advertisement can be quite successful if the person seeing it personally knows someone who is or has gone through this program with positive result. Seeing a celebrity as the spokesperson will encourage the audience even more if they admire or like them. But personal experience can also be negative and make the audience reject this ad because they have already tried it and seen negative results.
Epstein also adds that "we can accept a claim made by a reputable authority whom we can trust as an expert on this kind of claim and who has no motive to mislead", which is exactly what Weight Watchers is doing by using Jennifer Hudson to represent them. Her fans know that she has been struggling with her health and weight so she must be experienced in this area. Also she is an Oscar winning actress so why would she take on this role and try to mislead her audience?
If she did this she would lose all credibility as successful career woman and be ignored by her fans who most likely admire her for her honesty and strength.

Repairing Arguments

On our way to school one day a Coldplay song came on the radio. My cousin who is a big fan said "British bands always make great music. So Coldplay makes great music."
This is an example of a defective argument because it is missing key information that would be make it a much more plausible claim. The main part that is missing is "Coldplay is a British band". Without this information a person who is not familiar with them would not know that they are of British origin. Another part that makes the argument defective is "British bands always make great music" the key word being "always". This statement is a fallacy because there is nothing that could prove this statement to be plausible. There is no possible way that would lead everyone to believe that British bands will and always make great music. Also this statement is subjective since a person's taste in music differs from others based on their knowledge and experience in that specific genre. "Great music" has a different definition to everyone and making this a claim is not correct because of that reason.

But as Epstein explains the only we can repair this argument is by adding that bit of information about how Coldplay is a British band. "We repair only as needed". (Epstein, 63)
Changing the first premise will not make the argument better because it is my cousin's opinion and his personal belief.

Organizational Culture

From the reading in the fourth chapter of the Essential Guide to Group Communication I found the part about organizational culture very interesting. According to the author there are several different kinds of cultures in the workplace depending on the company's policies and management. Some companies are family businesses and condone good and close connections between coworkers. These companies tend to be more personal and laid back compared to bigger and more conservative corporations. Some companies will allow certain days for their employees to feel more relaxed such as "dress-down Fridays". I recently read an article about companies giving more incentive to their employees by providing "nap rooms" where worker can take 20 to 30 minute naps each day. These companies found that their employees functioned much better with the opportunity to rest.
Other companies on the contrary would rather keep their relationships with their employees strictly professional. These companies tend to leave little room for change while others let their employees have a voice to improve the workplace if they feel it is necessary.

Fallacies

A fallacy is typically an argument that is bad or invalid because both its premises and conclusion cannot be improved to make the argument good or valid. The argument does not make sense and cannot be assumed to be true.
There are three types of fallacies according to Epstein; structural , content, violations of the Principle of Rational Discussion. 
A structural fallacy makes an argument bad because of its wording and format. This type of fallacy does not have to do with the actual subject or meaning of the argument. Affirming the consequent is one of the example Epstein gives that says if A, then, B. B. Therefore A. This translates to is A is true then B is true so therefore A is true.
A content fallacy has to do with the actual subject and meaning of the argument contrary to a structural fallacy. There are many different kinds that can be used. The first one Epstein gives us when the person confuses an objective claim with a subjective one or vice-versa. Another kind is mistaking the person or group for the argument. "(Almost) any argument that (blank) gives about (blank) is bad.
The third kind Epstein introduces is violating the Principle of Rational Discussion. This would happen if the argument begs the question, puts words into a person's mouth and misrepresents them, shifts the burden of proof, or the premises have nothing to do with the conclusion.

An example of a fallacy I recently witnessed was a popular media article on Gwen Stefani. The article claimed that Gwen Stefani was pregnant because she was always wearing baggy clothes and an acquaintance of the singer had told the magazine that she was four months along. This argument is a content fallacy because this could be a bad appeal to common belief. The media is used to showing singers and actresses always wearing tight fitting clothes and flaunting their curve-less figures and if they are wearing baggy clothes they must be hiding something. So as soon as an actress or female singer has some kind of bump in their mid-area they must be pregnant whether or not the "bump" might be caused by baggy clothes or unflattering pose. So if Gwen Stefani has been wearing baggy clothes for several days in a row she must be hiding something underneath them.
This is a fallacy because one cannot assume that a woman is pregnant solely based on the reason that she wears baggy clothes. Maybe she wanted a style change, maybe she gained some weight, or maybe she is showing off her new designs from her clothing collection that include a collection of breezy spring dresses and blouses.

The Structure of Arguments

The first paragraph of the exercises is an argument.
My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard (1). People do not like living next door to such a mess (2). He never drives any of them (3). They look old and beat up(4) and leak oil all over the place(5). It is bad for the neighborhood(6), and it will decrease property values(7).
There enough premises and additional ones are not needed to make the argument stronger. I think that this is a good argument because there are several premises that seem to be valid. Also since this is coming from a neighbor which makes the argument stronger. The person giving the argument obviously lives close to the neighbor and witnesses this every day. The argument could be better if there were more evidence from other neighbors or at least their support since this affecting the whole neighborhood.

Begging the Question

In chapter 3, Epstein defines the term "begging the question". In the author's words an argument begs the question if one if its premises is no more plausible than the conclusion and any argument that begs the question is bad.
Last week a friend of mine said "women and Asians are the worst drivers. So Asian women are the worst drivers on the road." His reasons were that they drove too slow and were just bad at driving in general. His argument begs the question because he is stereotyping drivers according to their gender and race from his own experience. He does not have any supported statistics to prove his "theory". His premises are not plausible because they are not necessarily true and his conclusion is not plausible either because they are based on those untrue premises. In fact based on real statistics the most dangerous drivers on the road are teenage boys. His argument could have been valid if he had more than his two life experiences on the road.

Strong Vs. Valid Arguments

The main difference between a strong argument and a valid argument according to Epstein is that a strong argument can have a plausible premise with a false conclusion at the same while a valid argument must have both true premises and a true conclusion.
A real life example of a valid argument would be the minimum age for a licensed driver is sixteen therefore all legal drivers on the road are at least sixteen years old. This argument is valid because both the premise and the conclusion are true.
An example of a strong argument would be spending a day at the beach with friends is relaxing. Today is a good day for that because sun is out, there are no clouds, and it's not too windy therefore a day at the beach will be relaxing. This argument is strong because its premises can be validated as true and so can the conclusion. But the conclusion can also be false because the weather could change later in the day. Also all of the premises have to do with the weather and do not include factors such as having enough food, transportation, or activities at the beach.

Tests for a Good Argument

According to Epstein a good argument must consist of plausible premises, premises that are more plausible than the conclusion, and must be valid or strong. "An argument is valid if there is no possible for its premises to be true and its conclusion false at the same time."(Epstein, 39)Also plausible claims have good reason for the audience to believe they are true.
Last year in one of my English classes, the professor asked us to write a letter to our parents persuading them to let us go on three month excursion in any country we chose during the school year. We had to come up with three good reasons for why they should let us go and the conclusion would be that we should be allowed to go. I told my parents that I was given the opportunity to learn about wildlife conservation and become an ambassador for the endangered species in Borneo, Indonesia. My two reasons were "I have a very good grade point average; Indonesia is part of my heritage since my mother was born and raised there; thirdly this experience would give me the opportunity to grow up and contribute to the world, therefore I am entitled to go even if it means missing part of a semester of my first year of college. The premises of my argument are not necessarily plausible. My grade point average can be checked but my definition of a "very good grade point average" and my parents' could be completely different. As to my Indonesian heritage this is true so it cannot be false, and the third premise is not a guarantee since I have not gone on the trip yet. There is no way of knowing that it would actually force me to "grow up" or contribute to the world.
My argument would be considered "weak" because not all of the premises are necessarily true and my conclusion is not true either since my parents are paying for my tuition so I am not "entitled" to leave during a semester of school.

Prescritive Claims

According to Epstein a prescriptive claim "says what should be". One of the examples Epstein used to compare a descriptive claim from a prescriptive one is if someone said "Drunken drivers kill more people than sober drivers do (descriptive)" its prescriptive claim could be "There should be be a law against drunken driving".
An example of a prescriptive claim I recently found was when my friend was driving and I sitting in the passenger seat. The car in front of us had been driving too slowly and was stopping past the lines at stop lights. They had also been swerving between lanes. When we finally passed them we saw that driver was an elderly woman who could barely over the wheel. My friend said: "that explains it! Old people are such dangerous drivers!" which was a descriptive claim. I replied with: "Yes, I agree. There should at least be a legal age limit for drivers on the road." This claim was prescriptive because I said what should happen while my friend what is.

Vague sentences

According to the Mission Critical Website from SJSU the definition of a vague word or sentence is "its meaning is not clear in context." An example I found recently was on a featured news article on Yahoo's homepage. The title of article was "Fewer Workers Wanted Now". This title is quite vague because it is not clear as to what kind of workers are not wanted and also when or where they are least wanted. From just the title readers could assume that this article means that all workers everywhere in the world are not wanted "now" as in at this exact moment today. However when the readers clicks on the article the title is expanded and now reads "Fewer Workers Wanted This Labor Day." This title clears up when and where the workers are least wanted which is not today but on Labor Day and Labor Day is an American holiday so it must be in the United States. But it still does not explain who exactly in the working world will be having a hard time finding a job. Also "fewer" is a vague word. Fewer from what number? The exact number of workers that will not be finding a job cannot be concluded from the word "fewer" alone. People must read the article to find the supporting statistics.  Both of these titles were vague and led people who were not aware of the situation to believe different answers. The author of this article did this purposefully to make people wonder what they were talking about thus making them read the article.

Subjective and Objective claims

Last week my seven year old brother asked me to play Club Penguin with him, which is an interactive computer game where one must pick a cartoon penguin choose its color, clothes, igloo, etc. Reluctantly I accepted because he had been asking me for days. I chose a blue penguin and started following his penguin around in "Penguin Land". After almost an hour of waddling around from the coffee shop to the Cardjitsu Dojo, I told my brother that this was the most boring game I had ever played in my life. He told me that that was because I was not an official member. An official member is required to pay a monthly fee of $6. My claim was obviously subjective because parents all over the world pay every month so that there sons and daughters can buy virtual clothes, pets, and furniture for their penguins. I had never seen my little brother more focused on anything than when he was playing Club Penguin. To him this was his greatest discovery yet and probably to all the children who were playing this as well. My claim was subjective because of my age and interests. Being able to go to virtual coffee shops and nights clubs is an obvious 'dreamland' to seven year old boys and girls. They can only have this freedom in a virtual world.


A few days ago I read an article on Yahoo! about the most populated cities in the world. An objective claim that stayed with me from that article is the statistic that said that about 18,000 people in Los Angeles die prematurely every year due to pollution-caused illnesses. This claim, I assume, is supported by concrete evidence that scientists have researched and come up with from the data. This particular claim does not personally target specific people. The ozone in Los Angeles is the most populated one in the world and can affect anyone and everyone.

August 25, 2010

Hello,


This is my second year at San Jose State. I am majoring in animation/illustration. This is my second communications class, last semester I took Comm 20 also known as Public Speaking. I am hoping to learn more about critical decision making and apply the techniques taught in this class to my major as well as everyday life. This is my first online college course but I have taken an anatomy/physiology course online a few years ago in high school.
Some of my personal interests are graphic design, photography, and traveling.
Thanks for stopping by!