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."

Appeal to Emotion? Bad? Good?

Appealing to emotion in a descriptive conclusion that cannot be deleted or changed designates a bad argument. For example, "I know I deserve to eat this cake. Today I only ate the healthiest thing on the McDonald's menu. And my diet has been going well so far. It won't hurt anyone and I really deserve this cake all to myself." This situation is also called wishful thinking. We often talk ourselves into thinking about a decision in our own little world. Just because we want something doesn't make an argument valid with our own appeals by emotions. Appealing to emotion in a prescriptive conclusion can be either good or bad. For prescriptive arguments, we are able to change it from bad to good based on how we use emotion to enhance the argument. The book also mentions that we should start to use appeals to emotion as an indicator as whether or not the argument is bad.

Appeal to Fear in Advertisements

As mentioned, appeal to fear is the use of premises that would potentially strike fear into the listener and have them potentially sway towards or agree with your argument. One example that I can think of on the top of my head is the Truth commercials. Truth is an ad campaign against the use of tobacco products. Every so often they bring out and release new commercials. Generally these commercials are entertaining. More recently they have been creating commercials of a fictional food company called "Shards o Glass." In the commercial, it is a company comparable to the tobacco industry because it is harmful for the user. The Truth ad campaign would make a fake commercial for the fake company and then at the end it would give a fact about tobacco product. These facts are meant to scare the public from using tobacco products. Generally it is about death and illness, which is something people can get scared of. But I feel that it really doesn't affect the users because it is something they already know and have been told. They pose a good argument to those who have not started smoking.

Appeals to Emotion

Appealing to emotions in your argument means you give a premise that you have an emotional drive to add in your argument. Directly inserting your opinion and your feelings are included into this category. Pretty much if you want the listener to appeal to your argument through pity or any kind of emotion, then you are appealing to emotion as well as appealing to pity. What striked me most in this chapter was the appeal to fear. It is a very manipulating way to argue to people. Basically using scare tactics are in this category. For example, you could say "If you keep smoking like you do, then you will die early like your grandfather did." This a method more famously used by politicians. More recently on television, there were ads that had to do with the recent election. Some ads used appeals to fear against their competitors to sway people to vote for them.

Evaluating Premises

"Is it true? Are these premises valid?" These are questions we must ask ourselves when evaluating premises in arguments. Validity is something that can be easily left out when making an argument, especially if it goes way against the argument. We have criteria for believing in arguments. If we don't believe the claim or the premise, we usually disregard it quickly. Usually first off we go off our own personal experience, which is a good thing because it is said the be the best source of information. But also it is only as good as we remember it to be. We can also check through reliable sources of information. We should never accept claims from a source we don't know that is valid or from sources that don't even have a source! But another thing is that we shouldn't disregard an argument just because of the person. We disregard arguments based on the premises.

Pretty Useful

I thought both assignments were pretty useful. As a whole, I thought that this was one of the smoothest group projects I've ever done in my college career. The assignments kind of made us delve deeper within an article or within an organization to actually question whether or not the arguments that they were stating were actually valid. That they actually were structured in a way a good and valid argument is supposed to be structured. The first was a useful exercise because it made us look deeper in what articles are actually posting. When I did my portion, I searched for each supporting claim and decided whether the argument within the article was actually valid and strong. I actually found it to structurally be weak, and it can show after you read the article. With the second assignment, we were asked to look deeper into an organization. I found this to be interesting because we were able to investigate further into the organization's statements and goals to find valid points.

Chapter 8 General Claims

Between One and All
Chapter 8 talks about general claims which are claims made in an argument that address a general topic. For example, saying that all salads are healthy is a general claim because it addresses salads in general. These general claims can be weak and invalid because of the generality included with them. In section C, they mention precise generalities. A precise generality is a claim that uses a quantity within the the argument. For example, "7% of San Jose State students graduate in 4 years. Mary graduated from San Jose State, therefore she graduated in more than four years." This could be either true or false, we can't tell whether Mary is part of the 93% percent that graduates after 4 years. Also in section C, they talk about vague generalities. In this they usually use the words "all," "some," "no," or "only." Instead of exact quantities they include a more vague key word. So for example you could say that "only a few students graduate in 4 years." With this you can create strong arguments but they can be weak as well.

Compound Claims

A compound claim has to do with a sentence that contains two claims but is viewed as a single claim. For example we have two single claims: "Working as an intern at a company can gain experience for the future." and "Working as an intern you can give you an insight of whether you'll do well or not in the career path." These claims can be combined to work as one claim. For example you could write, "Working as an intern at a company can give you experience or even give you an insight of whether you'll do well in said career path." These are two seperate claims that can be seen as one claim in one sentence, hence being a compound claim. This is also an alternative claim since it contains an "or" claim. It can also be seen as a compound claim because it is either or. The parts of the compound are not saying the same thing with different words, but are telling us that either you'll gain the right experience or you'll find out that you're not in the right field.

Chapter 7

Raising Objections
In the textbook, raising objections can show whether or not an argument is bad or not. Raising objections in an argument is puts one or more of the premises into question. You basically begin to contradict yourself in your own arguments. For example, you are try to sell a car and you point out the new state-of-the-art features, but then you bring your pitch down by saying the gas mileage is really low. The argument would've been good without the last part.
Refuting an Argument Directly
In this chapter there are more techniques to throw off an argument and prove it wrong and refuting directly is one of the methods that can be used. Firstly, there are three ways to directly refute an argument. You could show that there is doubt in a premise, show that argument isn't strong or valid, and show that the conclusion is false. But to successfully take an argument down, you need good proof to back it up.

Chapter 6

False Dilemmas
False dilemmas deal with arguments that use "or" claims. You can't use "or" without showing all the valid possibilities. For example, you argue that your brother smokes too many cigarettes and it's become too expensive. You give him the option that he can either stay away from you or cut back on smoking. Since he is bothering you specifically he can also move out or you could even move out. In this situation, you pose a false dilemma. You present two different alternatives when there is more alternatives that you didn't pose.

Conditionals
We all have used this type of claim in the past. For example, if you study well for the exam, then you'll do well on the exam. It deals with an 'if' statement and ends with a 'then' statement. Conditionals also don't need those two key words to form a conditional statement. With any action there is a reaction that follows it and as long as a sentence a antecedent and consequence, it can be called a conditional claim.

Who said it again?

Totally disregarding an argument based on who said is called "mistaking the person for the argument." In a way it's like the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" story. The boy went around saying there was a wolf trying to eat the sheep and people would run and panic only to find nothing there. Once a real wolf came, no one believed him. If he argued that wolf came and ate some sheep, people would reject him because he said it. You must consider the claims to be true or false in a non biased manner. A phony refutation when someone makes a point that the person who made the argument can't be believed because he hasn't been trustworthy in the past. In the case of the story, people reminded the other town members that he had told this lie several times. There's a company that sells vitamins, but they are known to scam people through a pyramid scheme, but you can't use that to disprove that the vitamins are actually valid.

Ads: Internet Security

Spyware and virus have become a threat to your local PC. Naturally there are ads floating around on the internet for protection against those threats. You wonder which one is better. But they're all made to do the same thing. It's like choosing between the brand name or the generic stuff. It's all the same. Titanium by Trend Micro claims that 'nothing comes close.' All these antivirus ads always say that they're the best in protection. They do set up a good premise by allowing people to actually try the product and letting you try for yourself. But usually some programs on the internet cannot be trusted. There are new viruses that act like an antivirus program and try and force you to buy it so the attacks will stop. There was also a testimonial on the page, but the source seems random. Its getting harder and harder to believe testimonials.

http://shop.trendmicro.com/try/?mpt=5670577?283,32

Repairing Arguments

There are guidelines to repairing an argument. But they need to satisfy the points in the textbook. The argument needs to become stronger, the premise needs to become plausible, and the premise is more plausible than the conclusion. For example you could say, "Car mechanics know how to fix cars. Doug is a mechanic, so he knows how to fix my car." This argument is lacking somehow. We know that car mechanics fix cars and we know that Doug is a mechanic. It lacks the right information that Doug is a car mechanic. Without the adjective describing what kind of mechanic Doug is. He could be a utilities mechanic. Those kinds of mechanics for sure are not specialized in cars. This argument would be valid with the description of what kind of mechanic Doug is. This argument satisfies the three criteria with the modification. It becomes more vaid. And premises are descriptive and therefore plausible. And the premise was already more plausible than the conclusion.

Rationality

Stating relevant premises in your argument is a very important part to any argument. You don't want to mislead the listeners with irrelevant premises; it takes away from your claim and can potentially distract from what you are trying to argue. Making irrelevant premises also shows the listener that you don't know very much on the subject being argued about. I heard an outrageous argument against gay marriage about a year ago. Someone argued that if people of the same sex are allowed to marry, we would start allowing people to marry their pet dog. I thought this was irrelevant because the argument is dealing with the marriage of two human beings. In my opinion this makes the person sound strange because it is something totally irrelevant and outrageous. Making relevant premises not only helps your conclusion and claim, but it also gives a better and stronger argument.

I chose the third example.

"Las Vegas has too many people.(1.) There's not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people.(2.) And the infrastructure of the city can't handle more than a million people:(3.) The streets are overcrowded, and traffic is always congested; the schools are overcrowded, and new ones can't be built fast enough.(4.) We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and country.(5.)"

1. Is this in argument?
Yes

2. What is the conclusion?
We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and country. (4.)

3. Any additional premises needed?
There is too many people if Las Vegas can't handle more than a million people.

Las Vegas can't handle more than a million people if there isn't enough water, if the streets are overcrowded, and traffic is always congested, if the schools are overcrowed, and if new ones can't be build fast enough.

4. Identify any subargument:
Sentences 2-4
"There's not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people.(2.) And the infrastructure of the city can't handle more than a million people:(3.) The streets are overcrowded, and traffic is always congested; the schools are overcrowded, and new ones can't be built fast enough.(4.)"

5. Good Argument?
Yes it is a solid argument.

I actually enjoyed this exercise. It laid out the different parts of an argument and its claims. The one I chose was enjoyable because it is easy to relate to since I have family in Las Vegas.

Time Pressures

With any assignment there are deadlines and time constraints, but when dealing with group projects, there are many factors that can make completing the task more complicated. Time pressures is the effects the shortage of time towards the group. (O'hair 44) These factors may include meeting times and agreements on how to go about the assignments. If these cannot be established, then the assignment would end up being rushed. A good leader can deal with time pressures effectively by acting quickly and in an orderly fashion. As with groups needed for this class, a good leader would take a poll in order to find out when the best time would be to meet. With more people it would be harder and harder to find a perfect time for everyone to meet. Then the designated leader would need to make deadlines for everyone so people wouldn't procrastinate to the very end. These methods would quickly ease some of the time pressures.

Valid vs Strong

As similar valid arguments and strong arguments sound, they are two different concepts. A valid argument can be strong, and a strong argument can be valid. But a strong argument can also be invalid. A strong argument provides premises that are true but a conclusion that is false. A valid argument provides an argument that cannot be false. Basically a valid argument does not need a strong premise to be true. For example you could say that studying for exam will increase your chances of receiving an A and it would be valid. But to make it stronger, you would include that studying the class notes and what follows closely would also aid in the accuracy of what will exactly be on the test. For strong arguments you could make a good argument about why abortions should be allowed, but it doesn't necessarily need to be valid. It could sway people, but it wouldn't cause everyone to change their decisions.

Learning a New Language

You cannot completely learn a new language in a classroom setting. You can learn how to introduce yourself, but when there isn't anyone who understands your introduction, it becomes difficult to retain. After I spent a month in Spain for an exchange program in high school, I have retained more than the average person who had taken it for all four years in high school. I had to use real life situations such as introducing myself to the locals, order from restaurants, and to the basics of asking my Spanish mother how her day went. It is hard to just learn a language in a classroom, to only come back to speaking it in that very same classroom. But being in the country where they speak that language, immerses you in the culture and forces you to use your acquired knowledge in real life situations. The best way to learn a new language is to learn the language in the country of origin.

Between Being Personal and the Standard

The standard deals with statements that are very vague. One can say that the ten commandments are the standards of a Christian lifestyle. These are very vague statements, but they are agreed upon. Of course it is wrong to kill and steal. Of course it is looked down if you check out your friend's spouse. These are all standard, but pretty vague. Would you agree that killing a cow is okay, but not a person? Well some extremist would say both are wrong, but in this case the general would agree. No one would go to jail for making burgers. These claims can be seen as descriptive claims as well. To turn these statements into perspective claim you could simply add why and make it more personal. Saying you shouldn’t kill a person because you don’t want to end up in jail is more personal than making a vague claim.

That was pretty vague...

I work at a yogurt shop in San Jose and I deal with the marketing of the store and one of things I deal with is fundraisers. I also go through with making sure that the funds that they are making are helping out the community and not being used selfishly. I had a meeting today with an organization that wanted to do a fundraiser with us. There was one portion that I had quite a bit of trouble comprehending. It was why they needed to do a fundraiser. I found the reason a bit vague. In direct quotation, the representative said they wanted to "build funds for their group activities." It took me a while to figure out what they actually needed the funds for. I couldn't tell if they wanted money for their pizza parties or to help out the community. They work in conjunction to the Red Cross of America, but they aren't directly affiliated with them. I couldn't understand why it all sounded so vague to me, but I connected that they are a supporter group.

Wonders of Yelp!

Recently I have been exploring the wonders of the website, Yelp!

Yelp is an online service that shows ratings of different restaurants, stores, hotels, and more. These ratings and reviews are completely based by Yelp members; basically the common public. I started using Yelp when I visited Southern California recently. We used it to find popular restaurants and for the most part those reviews lived up to their hype. These reviews can either be agreed or disagreed upon because of their subjective nature. You can find people who absolutely love a place and people can absolutely hate the place. It's all subjective. Subjective claims deal with something that can't be measured or proved. For example, saying that Ike's Place has the best tasting sandwiches in San Francisco is a subjective claim because it can't be proved. It all depends from person to person. There maybe a general consensus only, but it can't be proven. There's some objective claims that can be found yelp as well, but there is very little. Objective claims are factual statements such as the sky is blue or there are fish in the ocean. Examples on Yelp may be that Ike's Place is the only sandwich place in the area. It is something measurable and cannot be proven otherwise.

Introductory Post

Hello Everyone and Fellow Classmates!

I'm a fourth year Industrial Design major, who is also minoring in Japanese. I really didn't consider myself as a social person until I entered college, where I didn't know a single person. Each gave me new opportunities to meet new people. Joining a community service and leadership organization also helped in branching out. I just enjoy being around good company. Besides hanging out, I have an artsy side of me. I enjoy architecture and good design, so I'm up for an adventure to a new city. Thanks for listening folks!