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.