Favorite part? Least favorite?

My favorite part of the class were probably the papers. Some of the concepts that we learned and read about helped us analyze whatever subject we had thoroughly. They also helped us practice the concepts we learned about in the previous chapters. I enjoyed exercises that had us analyze real life situations and use the different concepts. I thought it was very useful in real-life situations. It was a contrast from having the routine where we would have to make our own examples. But they weren't all that bad. They were helpful. If you didn't understand the concept, you would have to research further to understand the concept clearly. Some thing that I didn't particularly enjoy was the word count, but I think it was necessary. I just found myself looking for more to say about the topic. I would have probably have enjoyed the requirement of sentences. I think this class was fine as is. I actually learned quite a bit in the class despite it being online, where one could slack off easily.

What I learned

I honestly learned quite a bit through the semester with this course. I learned about different types of arguments and how each can be used successfully. The most interesting of the batch would probably be fallacies and refutation of arguments. But one of the most helpful aspects was the example of how groups can be successful. Usually in classes I would dread the thought of doing group projects. And despite the lack of face to face interactions because of nature of the class, we were able to get everything done accordingly. This was also helped by the small groups text books that we were required. With timely updates from each member, we were able to finish the assignments. The most important key to the success is communication between group members. Overall I thought that was the most useful concept that I learned in this class. For example a company cannot be run by one person, but an entire team of people.

Mission Critical Website

Upon looking at the Mission: Critical website, I was very confused and honestly overwhelmed by all these topics that we have already covered in class. But as I started reading each article, I found that this tool was a great and easy way to review each concept that I wasn't too familiar with.
I found the meaning to concepts that we learned of from a chapter ago and it also gave it a new light. For me, I enjoyed the sections that had to do most with fallacies the most. In general, I had some confusion on most of them because the book didn't go into great detail of explanation of each example. I also liked how there was a specific and cumulative exercise under each section. They did a good job in explaining why the answers were the way they were. Overall I would use this site again in order to review and be able to find and point out good arguments as well as bad arguments.

Causal Argument Article

I found the link that was supplied about causal arguments very useful in many different ways. It used a real life situation. I think that the example was the backbone of what helped out the explanation the most. I also thought that the breakdown helped as well as the exercise as well. I found this link very useful. In the example, they mentioned that the faults can be either put on the illegally parked van, the cyclist, the first car, or the second car. The arguments made against each of these were very indeed plausible arguments. But who's recklessness really caused the accident? Not until there is a common agreement this argument cannot be solved. I also found it useful that they pointed out the main factors and with each an example to go with the story; how demonstrable, how likely, and significant commonality or difference. The three factors were very useful to sum everything up in the article. I liked how it used examples as well that tied well with the example that they gave.

Analogies in Law

In chapter 12, the book talked about analogies in law. In the book analogies in the law are “presented as detailed, carefully analyzed arguments, with the important similarities pointed out and a general principle stated.” These analogies eliminate any vagueness that laws hold. They provide examples that would clear up any misconceptions that may arise with any argument of the law. I believe that these should be used in conjunction with the laws so in any court, there would be no question. It is ultimately about the principle of the law. But at the same time laws are never supposed to be vague in my opinion. I see analogies in laws as examples of what the law entails. In my organization, sometimes we change laws because it sounds too vague and it needs to be more specific. But with American laws we shouldn't be able to change unless it is an extreme purpose. That is why analogies in law should be made to find any loopholes.

Causal Reasoning

I thought that causal reasoning would be new because of the content of the site given, but after all it is really simple. It is almost like inductive reasoning. Because of a certain event, it is reasonable to believe so. In comparison with inductive reasoning, it is usually used for scientific researches to eliminate any implausible hypothesis. Inductive reasoning is used more for personal observations. For example we can use global warming as an example for causal reasoning. "With the rate that we drive our cars in America it reduces the ozone layer, thus with this rate, global warming will go into effect faster." Through research we were able to find that the emissions from cars ate away at the ozone layer. So with this information we are able to use this as the cause that global warming will happen faster. Another thing about causal reasoning is that it is not always plausible, for example with the new technology cars are becoming less harmful to the environment.

Reasoning

1. Reasoning by Analogy - "This restaurant that we're about to go to has some good ratings from the newspaper, so this restaurant has to be good."
2. Sign Reasoning - "The manager looked very pleased with my application as well as with our interview, I'm for sure going to get the job."
3. Causal Reasoning - "I didn't study very well and didn't feel too well about the quiz, I think I did poorly on today's quiz."
4. Reasoning by Criteria - "To be able to change your major you have to have taken under the specified amount of units. You aren't able to because you took to many units and now it's too late."
5. Reasoning by Example - "You should join an on campus organization. My friend who joined one seems to be enjoying college because he met people with similar interests."
6. Inductive - "This certain constellation only showed up in every season, but summer. It's winter now so we should be able to see it."
7. Deductive - "Actual led isn't used for pencils nowadays. So this pencil doesn't actually use led."