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.