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.