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.