Making Generalizations

We make generalizations every day about groups of people or things. It is important when making generalizations that we have a good sample. If I was doing a survey on the necessity of shaving and only interviewed girls I shouldn’t generalize and say that everyone thinks shaving is important. Because I did not survey any males in my study my outcome is inaccurate. Another important aspect of generalizing is to make sure my sample is representative. On top of interviewing both sexes I should also search for people of different cultures and ages. I should try and make sure that I have a large sized group of randomly selected people that I interview as well. Lastly I should have made sure my sample was studied well. I should make sure the people I am interviewing fit the criteria of my study. For example I wouldn’t interview my 6 year old cousin about shaving because she is too young t shave.

What i have learned

Over the course of this semester I have not only increased my knowledge of argumentative and reasoning skills but I have also learned a lot about myself. One of the most interesting concepts I learned were all the different types of appeals. People use all different types of appeals such as sympathy and fear to convince others to join their cause or support them and I never realized how gullible I was to most of them. I realized that I am easily convinced by advertisements specifically those that use the appeal to sympathy. Overall I think I have learned how to strengthen the claims I make from exercises about repairing and analyzing arguments. The examples in the book about these helped me realize common mistake I make all the time in my arguments and I learned ways to repair them and make them stronger. Another important concept I learned was how much being clear and concise in an argument makes a difference. In the group facilitation study a lot of the arguments the people made were vague and did not offer much support. I realize that the people who spoke and gave strong reasons with lots of support were often the ones who had an impact on the decision of the group.

My likes and dislikes

I have never taken an online class before so I was kind of excited to not have to go to class and just complete the work on my own. I really like working on the group projects. Although sometimes it was stressful it really helped me improve my communication skills and learn to work with people even if you cannot always meet in person. One thing I didn’t like about the class was having to post blogs 12 hours apart. I completely understand the point of having time restrictions and it definitely helped me from slacking off and waiting till 9 pm on Saturday night to finish them all. However sometimes I would get really busy and do all my blogs on one day earlier in the week but then forget to post them later so I would have to wake up at odd times in the night to make sure I could get them all in twelve hours apart.

Mission Critical website

The Mission Critical website is actually very helpful and I wish I had discovered it earlier. This website offers very good explanations and examples for so many things from how to form an argument to the analysis of one. This website is a very good tool that helped increase my knowledge on the different types of reasoning by providing good examples that were easy to understand. Sometimes when working with the Epstein book I have to go back and read the example three times before I can grasp the concept. If I fail to grasp the ideas they are trying to portray doing the exercises is not very helpful because it is unable to explain where I made my mistake. In this website almost all sections have exercises that will give you information on why an answer you selected is incorrect in comparison to the others. I feel like this tool really helped me learn the material better. This website offers very casual realistic examples and explanations and think it a useful pair to the Epstein manual.

Cause and Effect

The cause and effect reading from the website had a lot of helpful tips. The example about the car accident was simple and made it easy to understand their reasoning. I never realized how a cause and effect relationship could be a form of inductive reasoning until after reading the given information. However unlike in inductive reasoning where the assumption is that there is otherwise no significant difference between the premises in cause and effect reasoning the implication is that there is only one significant difference. There are two rules to remember when deciding if you’re dealing with causation. The first is that the cause must precede the event in time. The second rule is that even if there is a strong correlation, it is insufficient to prove causation. In the exercises that went along with the examples I learned even more about this type of reasoning because if I clicked on the wrong answer rather than just telling me it’s incorrect it provides a brief description of why my answer is incorrect.

Inductive vs. deductive

I often forget and get confused on the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, so I decided to do more research to help me remember. Deductive reasoning involves moving from the general to the specifics. While inductive reasoning takes specific statements and tries to generalize them.  An example of deductive reasoning would be:

·      Premise 1: All college students go to school.

·      Premise 2:I go to school.

·      Conclusion: I am a college student.

An example of inductive reasoning would be:

·      Premise: All cows I have seen have spots.

·      Conclusion: All cows must have spots.

Just because someone uses inductive or deductive reasoning does make their argument true. In my last example just because all cows I have seen have spots does not mean the all cows must have spots. In fact there are lots of cows without spots. An in my deductive reasoning example just because I go to school does not always mean I am in college.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-inductive-and-deductive-reasoning.htm

Judging Analogies

In chapter 12 of the Epstein reading it discusses how to judge analogies. Sometimes people jump from one thing to another and try to compare them with a weak analogy. It is important that we learn how to judge these analogies so we can decipher when someone is making a valid point and when they are not. It is important that on top of just realizing the similarities and differences between the things we compare that we look at the general principle. At first glance some reasons people give to support their argument can seem like it doesn’t apply but once we spot the general principle we can find underlying similarities that bring the argument together and help us to make a more rational conclusion. Another way that we can judge analogies is by using an analogy of one argument to another which creates a powerful way to refute. If we simply accept analogies people give us without analyzing them we could miss important details that could sway our decision.

Types of Reasoning

1.       Reasoning by analogy is when you reason from one particular to another. An example of this would be:

Premise 1: Paco is a dog and eats dog food.

Premise 2: Sam is a dog.

Conclusion: Sam eats dog food.

2.       Argument by sign occurs when you have two things that are often closely related, we can assume that the presence or lack of one indicates the presence or lack of the other. For example people often associate smoke with fire or a person’s SAT score with how smart that person is.

3.       Casual reasoning allows people to find meaningful order in events that might otherwise appear random. For example, there is a knock on the door and the cat runs into the other room. A lady sitting on the couch gets up to answer it and a vase falls off a nearby table and breaks. Casual reasoning allows us to analyze the causation of events that lead to the broken vase and give us reason to what happened. In this situation we would reason that the jumpy cat knocked the table and it ran out of the room.

4.       Criteria reasoning is useful when trying to reason with others because it offers criteria from the start that helps make your argument more likely to be accepted. Establishing criteria provides legitimacy for any future argument

5.       Reasoning by example involves using examples as evidence to why someone should do something or something should occur. For example, “You shouldn’t buy that shirt. My Sister bought that shirt and the buttons fell off the first time she wore it.”

6.       In inductive reasoning the conclusion contains more information than is already contained in the premises. For example:

7.       Premise: Christmas has been on December 25^th for each year up until now.

Conclusion: Christmas will be on December 25^th of this year as well.

8.       In deductive reasoning there is no way for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, the conclusion contains no more information than in the premises.

Premise 1: If we get tickets, I will go to the concert

Premise 2: I am going to the concert.

Conclusion: We got the tickets.

Appeal to Fear

  Allstate insurance has launched a new campaign of commercials in which a man acts as careless driver or windstorm that knocks down a tree branch and wrecks a car. The point of these commercials is to scare viewers into buying insurance from them because without it you and your car will be susceptible to all the uncontrollable danger in the world. This tactic i better known as an appeal to fear. This appeal is utilized to convince people do something because they are afraid of the consequences if they dont. I personally don’t think it is a good argument because there is no way to control what happens when your out there driving and most people like myself are already insured with quality insurance that can support them if a problem arises. However I do think this commercial is very effective in convincing people without insurance or people with a low insurance plan to upgrade to Allstate insurance that has this new concept of accident forgiveness. I also think whether or not a person decides to change insurance companies the fear presented in this commercial makes drivers overall more conscious of other cars when driving.

Apple polishing

3.New Maybelline Falsies mascara commercials are on all the time and a lot of people I know have actually been interested in this new mascara and after watching several commercials were convinced enough to buy it. In the commercial the narrator states that, “this new multi-patented spoon brush load every lash with keratin fiber formula for 300% more visible lashes, corner to corner with no gaps from any angle.” This commercial suggests that people should buy this mascara in order to enhance their short lashes without the struggle of dealing with fake eyelashes. This is a good example of apple-polishing because it attempts to convince viewers to buy their mascara but it uses an unstated premise that you want to have long eyelashes that have the same effect as being false. Another unstated premise is that this is the best way to increase your lashes giving you a glamorous look every day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRz4bss2nHo&feature=related

Appeal to Emotion

A lot of advertisements or arguments I have with friends usually involve someone trying appeal to the other emotions. According to Epstein, an appeal to emotion is a premise that says you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way. There are many different types of this appeal and the one that struck my interests the most was appealing to fear. I think this is one of the best ways to persuade someone to take your side or understand your point of view. People will often do whatever it takes when they are afraid something will occur. A lot of advertisements use fear to convince viewers to buy their product. Before an election you often see lots of commercials that talk about the harm a politician will cause if elected. They focus on issues that seem scary to most people such as less funding for schools, open borders or less severe punishment for criminals. This often persuades people too vote for a specific candidate come election day.

Begging the Question

From all the sections we haven’t studied this far, I decided to take a look back on the fallacy known as begging the question. After reading about it the first time I really did not understand what it meant. After researching on the internet I found many examples and new explanations of this fallacy. Begging the question basically means that the conclusion appears in the beginning and in the end of the argument. The site gave this example:

·         You should drive on the right side of the road because that is what the law says and the law is the law.

This example really helped me to understand this fallacy more because it gave me a clear example as to why this argument is weak. When you assume the validity of what the other person was questioning in the first place you are then begging the question. I’m not sure if it was just the example in the book that confused me the first time around but after doing additional research and finding this example I understand the topic much better.

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/beggingquestion.htm

General claims

A lot of times people makes claims that they think are okay just because they are general. I am guilty of doing this all the time. This occurs when people use words like: all and none. According to Epstein claims with these phrases are not valid most of the time because it is hard to be completely sure that everything we are referring to applies. For example last night my friend Olivia said, “All girls like the color pink.” Well that was obviously not true because I myself know of three girls that really dislike the color pink. But less obvious examples happen all the time too. My friend Alex and I were discussing a group of people in our class that never show up and when they do they play games on their computers the whole time or talk and be disruptive. Last week after class Alex said, “Not one of those guys is passing this course, they should just drop.” At the time I just kind of ignored the comment but now I realize that his claim was not valid because there is no way he can be sure that not one of the five people have at least a “C” in the class.

usefulness of major course assignments

The two projects we have done thus far have been very helpful and eye opening. Before doing the first project I never really paid full attention to the things I was reading. If I felt the information was coming from a credible source I believed it. After dissecting the political argument I realize how persuasion influences an argument and can make it misleading. I learned that when a person is trying to convince you to take their side they will say whatever they need to convince you. They bring up a lot of points that seem valid but they don’t provide and support to their claims. On the PETA website while researching for the second group project I realized the importance of strong reasoning. Many people were asking questions doubting the validity of the organization and what it stood for. In order to keep support the organization has to be able to use strong and valid claims that persuade people to keep donating and even convince doubters to jump on board.

Raising Objections

One section that I thought was interesting in Epstein’s text was the section about raising objections. By raising an objection you are basically creating a new argument within an argument. I am the type of person that has to see it to believe it so I am constantly raising objections and counter arguing most things people say. When people raise objections they are following a pattern without even knowing it. The pattern usually starts with an argument then has a counter argument and then a counter-counter argument. This is how people reason with each other every day. It is very helpful when presenting an argument to think of way to counter it. When you do this it prepares you for any other counter arguments someone might come up with. This is a sure way to make our argument stronger and more effective. After reading this section I am more prepared to make an argument with people and have better ways to counter their counter argument.

Refuting Directly

Sometimes it is necessary to raise objections in an argument to prove that a person’s argument is sometimes irrational. One way to do this is to refute it directly. The other day I was over at a friend’s place and her roommate said that they should get rid of their internet and use the library on campus because it is hard to study at the apartment, the bills will be a lot cheaper, and the library on campus is free with plenty of space to meet for group projects. My friend obviously didn’t take this well and refuted all of her arguments by stating that it will be easier to study at the apartment if they created quite hours, the bills wouldn’t be cheaper for her because she pays for the internet with allowance money from parents, and the library on campus is not always open so they would have nowhere to meet on for projects. My friend argued each point of argument her roommate had in this discussion which ended the dispute.

Compound Claims

A compound claim links two or more claims together. Whether or not the compound claim is true depends on the truth value of the claims represented in it. Although though there may be two claims present we must view it as just one in a compound claim. Some examples:

·         Michelle promised to do or homework or stay home this weekend.

·         Alex wanted to watch the Cowboys game at home or downtown at the bars.

Compound claims are false when the contradictory of a claim is one that has the opposite truth value in all possible circumstances. For instance if Michelle promised to do homework or stay home this weekend is the compound claim then Michelle did not promise to do homework and will not stay home this weekend in the contradictory. For the second example of where Alex would watch the game the contradictory would be that Alex did not want to watch the game at home nor downtown at the bars.

Online Advertisement

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/files/original/howard_tv_ads.jpg

This is an advertisement I found online for a tv channel called the Howard TV. This ad is geared toward men in relationships with the slogan being, “you have a fifty percent chance of getting divorced anyway.” They are using this statistic to convince men that watching pornographic shows will not hurt their relationship because the chances of it working aren’t very high. I reject the claims this ad is pushing. Even if the statistic is true there are many other factors that contribute to people getting divorced besides watching porn. Also the source of this information in the ad works for Howard Stern so I have a hard time believing their claims. This advertisement is very misleading and using weak arguments to make a point. However the point of the ad is to get people’s attention which it succeeded in doing though I highly doubt many people followed through and ordered the channel.

inferring and implying

I am a very honest and blunt person so I can’t help but say what I’m thinking or how I feel about something. However because I have a need to put my opinion into everything I often imply things. Such as the other day my roommate borrowed my brand new laptop to watch a show on it she was too lazy to buy herself. When I saw her using it I was so annoyed but didn’t feel like getting into an argument by making her give me my computer so instead I said, “I have a paper to write in a few minutes.” I went down stairs and made a snack and when I got back my computer was on my bed even though she hadn’t finished watching the show. This was followed by her saying, “I don’t know what you were so mad about.” My roommate gave me back my laptop right after I left the room because I implied that I would need that specific computer to write my paper despite the fact that there are new computers downstairs in our house for homework. She then went on to infer that I was mad at her since I left the room so hastily.

Repairing Arguments

I have been in many situations where I will try and argue/reason with a friend about a topic and she will not understand what I am talking about. Most times this occurs when I am more knowledgeable about a subject then my friend and they get lost in my reasoning because I jump from a premise to a conclusion without giving them a valid explanation/argument. After reading this section I understand the importance of being able to mentally repair my arguments I use in order to make them valid. An example of an argument that needs to be repaired is:

I have never seen Amber eat cheese therefore Amber must not like cheese.

This argument is not good because there is no argument linking the premise to the conclusion. It is possible that I have just not been around Amber enough to witness her eating cheese. In order to make the premise and conclusion stick together we need to add a premise. Something like Amber always specially orders food without cheese or that she is highly lactose intolerant would make the overall argument stronger thus linking the premise to the conclusion.

team building

Most organizations utilize a system of team building rather than having one person in charge to dictate. This system works because it gives everyone in the group a chance to interact and share ideas while still having a leader in charge. This interaction helps to build a stronger relationship between group members which is important in the sharing of ideas. When there is a poor relationship between members the group is less productive and it can take longer to get things done. When I was in a group once we were told to come up with an idea to sell a product. Luckily, my group and I worked very well together. One girl stepped up and took charge and instead of splitting up the assignment we worked together from start to finish. This worked really well for us because we all got to contribute in picking a product and our approach for selling it. On the day of the presentation we did very well. We were all on the same page and were able to deliver our product well while other groups argued in front of the class and by the end no one even knew what they were trying to present.

Burden of Proof Fallacy

The Burden of Proof fallacy also known as the Appeal to Ignorance is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Using this fallacy not only gets rid of having a rational discussion but can be misleading. A common example of this fallacy is in the American law where a person is innocent until proven guilty. This places the burden of proving this person guilty on the prosecution. Another example of this fallacy is one I heard recently while spending time with my six and eleven year old nephews during our vacation in Germany this past summer. My two nephews Donny and Ian were arguing over if Santa Claus is real. Ian, who had found out the truth about Santa, decided to tell Donny that Santa wasn’t real in order to pick on him. I thought Donny would cry when he found out the truth but instead he replied, “How do you know that? Have you been around the entire North Pole and looked to see if you found Santa’s workshop because if you haven’t then you don’t know anything.” Ian was speechless after Donny said that and got angry and stomped upstairs. At the time I was proud of my little nephew for sticking up for himself and winning the argument however now I see he won by using a fallacy.

Analyzing Complex Arguments

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 all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place 4. It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values 5.

Argument: yes

Conclusion: My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.

Additional premises needed: If he never drives any of them, they all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place, and people don’t like living next to such a mess then it is bad for the neighborhood and decreases property value

Sub arguments: 2,3,4,5 support the conclusion of 1:

Good argument: This is a good argument once the additional premise is written in full because it makes the overall argument clearer. Since 2,3,4,5 are not all independent it makes more sense for 2,3,4 to support 5 which leads to the conclusion of 1.

I found this exercise very useful although it took me awhile to understand how they were analyzing these arguments. After i got the hang of it i thought it was very useful in not only being able to correct examples from the book but it also will help me to notice  bad argument if I'm listening to someone or presenting something myself. This exercise will help me make sure I'm being clear when making arguments which in turn will make my argument more effective

Tests for a good argument

There are three tests an argument must pass in order for it to be considered good. Each testis independent of the others so one can fail while the others pass. The first test is that the argument should be plausible. An example of this would be stating that candy is bad for your health. Because research shows that consistently eating candy is bad for you, we can conclude that the argument is plausible. The second test is that the premises should be more plausible than the conclusion. For example if we say that candy is bad for your health so people should eat less candy and more vegetables. It is not plausible for the argument to be true and the conclusion to be false since people know from experience that eating healthy foods such as vegetables makes you feel better. Lastly, in order for an argument to be good it must be valid and/or strong. An example of this would be that after eating a lot of candy and junk food over the years my body started to gain weight and feel sluggish. I heard that eating balanced meals and more vegetables would make me feel healthier. I am now in good shape and have lots more energy.

Plausible Vs Implausible claims

In Chapter three Epstein discusses the premises of an argument. It is mentioned that from a false premise we can prove anything so it is important to make sure that the premise is true in order for the argument to be good. When a person has a good reason to trust that the point being made is true and valid, it is known as a plausible claim. An example of this would be that dogs like treats. This is plausible because usually dogs get very excited when there owner offers them a treat. It becomes seen as an award for good behavior and often used to train dogs. An example of an implausible claim would be that pigs can fly. This argument is often used as a way of stating that something is not going to happen but because we all know this argument is completely false it make it an implausible claim.

Strong Vs. Valid arguments

An argument is strong when it is possible to have a true premise but a false conclusion. In a strong argument a person would evaluate the strength depending on the likelihood of the argument to occur. Whereas in a valid argument there is no way to have a true premise and a false conclusion. Unlike strong arguments there is no judgment involved.


Valid Argument-All zebras have stripes on them.
So the Zebras at the San Diego zoo have stripes on them.
Because it is a fact that all zebras have stripes this premise nor the conclusion could be false unless tomorrow scientist create a new breed of zebras.

Strong Argument-All standard sized prints I have seen people order from Walgreens come sized 4x6.
So unless I specify what size prints I want my photos will be developed 4x6.
This argument is strong because I have ordered photos from Walgreens before and unless I specified otherwise the photos would be developed 4x6. However it might not necessarily be valid because I have not ordered photos from every Walgreens in the United States so I don’t know if somewhere in Kansas the standard print size is different.

Subjectivist fallacy

It is almost impossible to find two people who will agree with eachother on more than a few topics. However just because two people cant agree on whether a claim is true doesn’t make it subjective. If an employee tells their boss, “I deserve raise for working all those extra late night shifts” many people might confuse this claim for subjective because the employee stated what they believe to be true. This however is an objective claim because if it were subjective then there would be no point in arguing this with the boss. Just as people mistake objective claims for subjective the same is true vice versa. For example many people think that there opinions of how something looks is objective. I often find myself doing this when my friend wears something I don’t like. I will tell her that her outfit doesn’t match or that it is not cute. When I say these things I often think that I am right and that there is no opposing opinion but my claims are in fact not always right and subjective.

Vague Sentence

I live on 11th street and last night I was unable to fall asleep until three in the morning. There were a lot of people walking up and down the street in huge mobs looking for something to do. One of my friends I live with, who also couldn’t sleep, came into my room and said, “These people mobbing up and down the street are dirty and annoying.” Well not knowing what she meant I assumed she meant the people were dirty in a promiscuous way like they were being inappropriate out in front of our house. When I asked, “Did you tell them to get a room?” She looked very confused. It was then that I realized where I misunderstood her comment. My friend was being vague when she said the groups of people outside our home were dirty. A person being dirty could mean a lot of things from being unclean to promiscuous. Although my friend and I laughed afterwards I now understand the importance if specifying what you mean.

subjective vs. objective claims

Today while I was sitting in bed watching television my roommate decided to open a bag of Tootsie Roll pops. She only likes the chocolate flavored ones so when she noticed there was only one chocolate one in the bag she exclaimed, “The Tootsie Roll Company is stingy! They fill the bag with all the other flavors except chocolate.” This claim is subjective because if my roommate’s favorite tootsie pop had been raspberry rather than chocolate she would have been more satisfied with the assortment in this bag since the majority of the lollipops were raspberry flavored.


A friend of mine was looking for a pair scissors to cut out an article in a magazine for a class project. When she came to me looking to borrow scissors I told her that it was no problem because I had just purchased a two pack (one large and one small) the day before. However when I went to retrieve the smaller scissor for her I only saw the larger pair. I said, “I am sorry but I am going to have to give you the larger pair since I cannot find my smaller pair.” This claim is objective because it is a fact that I purchased two pairs of scissors the day before and that when I went to find the small pair I could not locate them. If I had concluded that someone stole my smaller pair of scissors this claim would have become subjective since I actually had no idea if the scissors were stolen or misplaced and made a decision based on personal feelings.

Introductory Post

My name is Michelle Simpson. I am a double major in Psychology and Dance. I am from southern California and went to Redlands East Valley High school where i cheered for four years. I am now entering my third year here at San Jose State. This is my second communications class, i took comm 20 last fall. I went to Europe (Germany, Italy, France) for two weeks this past summer. I don't know much about communications so i am excited to learn. I love reality television shows, squirrels, and my favorite color is purple.