Final discussion questions: #3

The concept from critical thinking that I felt could have used further discussion over the course of the semester was the concept of counterarguments. I believe that counterarguments is possibly the most important chapter in the entire Epstein text because the basis of critical thinking is arguments, and the concept of counterarguments could be interpreted as half of the knowledge needed to understand arguments fully. I also felt that within the subject of counterarguments the Epstein text failed to elaborate on the concept of refuting an argument properly, there was far too little present in terms of basic explanation and definition to learn the concepts without turning to outside resources. This is all not to say that I did not learn and understand the concept, but merely that I felt that this concept is immensely important and the text seemingly sweeps it under the rug rather than choosing to emphasize learning the nuances of a vast subject.

Final discussion questions: #2

Favorite: My favorite thing about this class was the well structured range of assignments, it seemed as though all of the assignments had great teaching materials provided as well as an easy to understand example when necessary. Additionally all of the assignments had the proper amount of spacing between them, which balanced well with the difficulty of assignments making for a class that required you to learn the material, while never pushing the stress level greatly.

Least Favorite: My least favorite thing about the class was the tests, although I read the book and took notes to accompany my online assignments going into the tests I never knew exactly what the material was going to be. While knowing which chapters the tests are concerning is one thing, a pseudo-study guide would definitely help so that the students know which particular concepts within the chapters are most important to know for the test.

One to improve upon: The only thing about this course that I would change without having to debate myself would be the due dates for the assignments, in that I would push them back to Sunday, or add another day onto the work week provided. I say this because many of those who choose to take online courses, myself included, have absolutely no time within the regular confines of the work day. With that said the requirements of spacing blog submissions by at least twelve hours was incredibly difficult, I had to do much of my work in the middle of the night for this course after I had finally gotten home - being that Sunday is the one day of my week that I dedicate entirely to school work it would've helped to have the blog post time frame to end on Sunday night, although this is all in the end personal preference.

Final discussion questions: #1

Over the course of the semester I have learned how to facilitate better discussion through critical thinking concepts, as well as further developing my ability to present well structured arguments. The basis of my learning this semester in Comm 41 is based around the concept of interacting claims, and how certain types of claims can be built upon to construct the best argument possible - achieving the ultimate goal of critical thinking, convincing the opposing party to accept your argument as truth.

Perhaps the most important lesson I can take from this course is the application of critical thinking concepts to group work, knowing the proper way to communicate and convey ideas to others within a work setting is vital to  functioning as an efficient worker. Through participation in group activities, particularly the filming of the third project involving group facilitation, I learned a great deal about not only participating in discussions but facilitating them as well. I believe that this skill is the most important thing I have learned all semester in Comm 41, as bringing about quality ideas from others is an incredibly useful ability in the corporate world.

Discussion questions week 9: #3

In chapter 15 of the Epstein text we are exploring the relationship between cause and effect in different scenarios within critical thinking. The most important concept found within this chapter is section A9: Two mistakes in evaluating cause and effect. This section is vital to the understanding of cause and effect relationships because it outlines the two common ways people incorrectly evaluate cause and effect relationships: reversing cause and effect, & looking too hard for a cause. Reversing cause and effect is a common mistake made by those who do not understand the nuances of cause and effect relationships, as they only work in one direction – it is important to remember that correlation does not indicate causation. Secondly looking too hard for a cause can be a problem for those unfamiliar with cause and effect relationships as there are many situations where an action is not a cause for a different concurrent event.

Discussion questions week 9: #2 Mission Critical

The mission critical webpage aided my learning process immensely because of the different ways it presented ideas I had learned earlier in the semester, and it provided in depth analysis of the concepts in a way that I had not seen yet. I think the best section of the mission critical webpage was the section on inference identifiers, these words are used to indicate types of arguments and resulting conclusions which I was unfamiliar with before this exercise. The exercises contained in the mission critical website were possibly the most helpful learning tools I've found during this entire course, the way each answer has a different explanation for why it is correct or incorrect was incredibly helpful. After going through lots of the exercises on this webpage I will definitely be bookmarking it for later use, I think it will be a very helpful studying tool for the final as it covers almost every subject we have learned this semester, and in many of the cases it provides better coverage of concepts than even the textbook did.

Discussion questions week 9: #1 Cause & Effect

I found the cause and effect online reading quite helpful for a multitude of reasons, foremost being its broad coverage of cause and effect followed by an in depth summary of different portions of this topic. From reading the Epstein text I was well aware what cause and effect reasoning was, but the website breaks the subject down in layman's terms which helped me vastly in understanding the specifics of the relationship between cause and effect. Specifically the sections concerning casual arguments were very helpful as I did not understand them very well going into this assignment, and the fact that there were multiple explanations for the different nuances of casual arguments really helped me. In addition to the reading, the exercises provided were very helpful especially if you struggled. The absolute most helpful part of this assignment was definitely the explanations given for incorrect answers in the exercises as the few things I still did not understand completely had complete, easy to understand explanations for why I had made mistakes within the exercise.

Discussion questions week 8: #3

Chapter twelve of the Epstein text revolves around the concept of reasoning by analogy, the most important portion of this chapter is section D, analogies in the law. This section focuses on the application of reasoning by analogy to America's legal system and the idea of common law. Reasoning by analogy is effectively the main idea in the American legal system, as the use of preceding court decisions is almost always routine in this country. This type of circular reasoning prevents conflicting decisions as to how laws are supposed to be interpreted, making the American system of law fair and balanced. This system of using prior court decisions to continually set precedents, in order to interpret new situations which laws must be applied to, is defined as common law. An example of this idea is the way supreme court decisions are used, because the supreme court has ruled school segregation is unconstitutional any court cases concerning school segregation can utilize reasoning by analogy to state that segregation in schools is unconstitutional as it has been ruled on before. These ideas help maintain the order and effectiveness of law in America everyday.

Discussion questions week 8: #2

The type of reasoning which was most difficult for me to understand was reasoning by criteria. The reason this concept was initially difficult for me was twofold: an unfamiliarity with its use in conversation, and I found the resource provided to be somewhat limited in its explanation. After investigating reasoning by criteria I have established a much better understanding of its uses.

Reasoning by criteria is the use of a qualifying statement which sets parameters for a decision or discussion which results in the conclusion being supported. Reasoning by criteria can be identified most often by an A-B format wherein the A is the statement which sets the criteria and B is the conclusion, an example of this format would be:

Your dogs will probably want a big chew toy(A), you should get this one.(B)

This example uses reasoning by criteria because the initial statement, or A, establishes a criteria (a big chew toy), and the conclusion, or B, remains within the criteria.

Discussion questions week 8: #1

Examples of types of Reasoning
Reasoning by Analogy: 
A: I didn't want to drink at the party last night, but I did because everyone else was drinking.
B: Well if everyone was going to commit suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge you wouldn't do that, why do you have to drink when everyone else does?
Sign Reasoning:
The clouds to the west looked dark announcing the arrival of an extreme thunderstorm.
Causal Reasoning:
Four students sitting next to each other in a physics class turned in the same answer for the midterm, by bringing each student into his office individually for interviews the professor found out they cheated, because none of them could reproduce their answer verbally.
Reasoning by Criteria:
My mother hates crowded cities, she would never want to visit San Francisco.
Reasoning by Example:
We shouldn't go out this weekend, we went out last weekend and there were way too many people.
Inductive reasoning:
Matt has gone out to dinner with his girlfriend every Friday for the last two months, I'm sure he will be going out to dinner with her again this Friday.
Deductive reasoning:
Matt has gone out to dinner with his girlfriend every Friday for the last two months, but he stayed in his room alone this Friday. I also think I heard him crying while I was watching a movie, his girlfriend must have broken up with him.

Discussion questions week 7: #3

One of the more important subjects in this chapter is the the appeal to spite. An appeal to spite is a specific type of appeal to emotion which is predicated upon an emotional response of revenge or "getting even". The textbook notes that the guiding principle of an appeal to spite is "two wrongs make a right." An example of an argument containing an appeal to spite would be:

Dave: "We should go help Tom move today."
Steve: "No we shouldn't. Tom would never help us move, he wouldn't even help us with our new TV last week before the football game."

In this conversation Steve uses an appeal to spite to refute Dave's request, Steve's goal being to convince Dave that he doesn't need to help Tom, because Tom would never help him. This is not necessarily a good appeal technique to use often, but if the person is properly justified in being angry it can be effective.

Discussion questions week 7: #1

An appeal to emotion is one of the most common forms of persuasion found in the modern world. Epstein defines an appeal to emotion as something in an argument that says, "you should do or believe something because you feel a certain way." This type of persuasion is often used in advertising or by people in everyday conversation, an example being: "You should feel terrible for hurting that girl's feelings. Her grandfather died this week, and she's been very depressed. You should go apologize to her right now." In this example the appeal to emotion comes from convincing the other person that they should feel bad, causing them to apologize.

One of the more important subjects within the appeal to emotion is appealing to fear. This tactic is employed to scare the audience into doing a certain action, for example: "You shouldn't drive fast because it's snowing. My father died on these roads, they are very dangerous." This example uses the fear of death as reasoning to convince the listener to drive slower.

Discussion questions week 6: #3

Chapter 8 of the Epstein text surrounds general claims, which are used to assert something about all or part of a grouping. The most important concept in this chapter was found in Section A: General Claims and Contradictories. This section discusses the main concepts of general claims, as well as ways to contradict statements made in the form of general claims. General claims are based around the words all, some, only, and no, as well as the many synonyms which are applicable. These words are used to make a statement towards the number of a defined group. An example of a sentence utilizing a general claim would be: “All Freshman have easy schedules.” This sentence utilizes the word all to define the sample size he is addressing in terms of freshman.

The next concept in this section is contradictory statements for general claims. These statements utilize phrases such as: some are not, all are not, not even one, or not every, among others. These phrases are used to provide the negative of any general claim, for example we can use the prior example, “All Freshman have easy schedules.” An example contradictory statement one could use in this situation would be, “Not every Freshman has an easy schedule.” By changing the phrasing we can completely changed the sample size, and often the entire message of a general claim with a contradictory.

Discussion questions week 6: #1

In chapter 8 of the Epstein text we learned about general claims, one specific portion of the chapter I would like to review is section C1 entitled Precise generalities. Precise generalities are claims which use a specific number set to determine the strength or weakness of the claim. This type of generality is most often associated with percentages, and always involves well-defined numbers somewhere between one and all. This type of claim can determine the strength of an argument by evaluating the numbers within, a very high or very low number signifies a strong argument, whereas numbers in the center of the presented range can signify a weak or invalid argument. While these arguments can leave some room for error it is generally accepted that if your argument makes good use of the numbers involved, and there is no information to the contrary, then your precise generality is a strong, valid argument.

An example of this generality happened to me just the other day, I was on the phone with my mother when she told me: "Another house in our neighborhood was targeted by burglars, that's the 5th house out of 40, I think our house might be targeted soon." This claim is a precise generality because it makes use of a defined number system with an apparent start and finish. This claim would be defined as weak though because of the numbers involved, 5 out of 40 houses in a neighborhood being burglarized does not justify any of the remaining houses becoming targets, the number is too low to form a justified argument.

Discussion questions week 6: #2

The assignments we have tackled in this class have been very diverse in their objectives and lessons, but the major assignment that has effected me the most would be the second project. Our critical thinking in social organizations assignment has helped me in two ways, first I am more aware about the difference between good intentions and good actions, and I have also learned a lot about how to effectively communicate in a group.

In this assignment my group chose to analyze PETA, an organization which has great intentions but is often under scrutiny for what some would consider extremist behavior. Learning about an organization such as this has changed my perspective on how I view companies, on the surface PETA seems like a loving organization executing a great cause; however when researching PETA I discovered that the organization has been involved with lots of shady business, such as funding domestic terrorists and euthanizing almost 85% of animals under care of the organization. Through this research I've learned an important lesson, that even the most innocent looking organizations can have dark secrets.

The second portion of the assignment that helped further my education was the group interaction. In our first group assignment my particular group had trouble meeting up in person, and consequently our paper was critiqued as not sound like a unified voice. For this assignment we chose to meet up three different times in person, instead of only once online, and the experience has really demonstrated to me what good group effort is. By meeting in person I think our ideas were communicated well, and we formed a paper that would suit the entire group's beliefs and writing styles. Through this experience I have learned that although the internet is a great tool, ideas are best communicated in person where the full breadth of the concept can be discussed.

Discussion questions week 5: #3

Chapter six of the Epstein text is based around the concept of compound claims. Much like a compound sentence a compound claim is essentially one statement, but it is gathered from multiple small claims. Two of the most important concepts in understanding compound claims are the contradictory of a claim, and necessary and sufficient conditions.

The first subject, contradictory of a claim, illustrates how to indicate a false compound claim. This concept is defined by the Epstein text as follows: "The contradictory of a claim is one that has the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances. Sometimes a contradictory is called the negation of a claim." This idea can work in two ways, first we can have the transition from an affirmative phrase to a negative phrase, for example:

A: Mary won't date Brent, or Mary will fall in love with him.

B: Mary will date Brent, or Mary won't fall in love with him. 

In this example the phrase has its meaning changed by switching negatives and positives in the sentence; however in the next example, the opposite is true.

.

A: The house will get cleaned out, or we won't be able to have a party.

B: The house won't get cleaned out, or we will be able to have a party.

In this example we see the meaning is changed to a positive message by the exchanged of the modifiers "will" and "won't". This idea is essential to understanding compound claims and also is an early component chapter seven's concepts.

Discussion questions week 5: #2

In chapter 7 of the Epstein text we are presented with ideas that pertain to nullifying and refuting opposing arguments. These ideas are based on the first portion of the chapter - raising objections. Raising objections is defined by the book as "a standard way to show that an argument is bad." To apply this idea we must evaluate the opposing argument and do one of three things: illustrate that one of the stated premises is poor, show that an unstated premise, or demonstrate that the argument itself is weak.

By raising objections we are able to transition into the second idea of the chapter which is refuting arguments. Refuting arguments is based upon the principles of raising objections, we must first raise objections in order to refute arguments, but this can be done in different ways. The first method is refuting an argument directly, which is the most common form of this practice. Refuting an argument directly is based upon disproving premises, demonstrating an invalid or weak argument, and showing that the conclusion is false. You can also refute an argument indirectly, to do this we must reduce the argument to the absurd. This is done by drawing an unwanted conclusion from an opposing argument, thus rendering it invalid. By making use of these concepts we can further our portion of the argument while rendering the opposing viewpoint null.

Discussion questions week 5: #1

The subject I would like to review is false dilemmas, found in section A.4 of chapter 6. False dilemmas are an important portion of arguments as they are used often in everday situations. False dilemmas are also tricky to evaluate because while they are valid arguments, they are not strong arguments. The key to identifying a false dilemma is identifying a versus-claim and then looking for an "or" claim that fails to list all possible outcomes. An example of this would be:

"My mom is very sick, either we need to go take care of her or my sister has to."

While this argument is valid, it fails to be strong because it does not explore all of the available options. While these two groups may be the ones who end up taking care of the mother, it's entirely possible that the sick mother could go to the hospital, or even have a friend take care of her. As demonstrated by this example it's very important to explore all possibilities in order to avoid false dilemmas

Discussion questions week 4: #3

The subject I decided to review this week was section C in chapter 5 of the Epstein text: Advertising and the Internet. I spend much of my day viewing the internet and advertisements are continually present, whether we realize it consciously or not. As the book states "Many advertisements are arguments," and thus we should evaluate them with the same criteria that we evaluate any other arguments, but because of the way they are presented this is often not the case. This problem is further complicated when the internet is taken into account, for example: imagine you're browsing a message board and you come across a post from someone detailing a new electronic gadget they like. This comes off as simply a discussion on the internet about a gadget; however this type of interaction is an argument as well, and if you do not evaluate it with the same criteria that we use for any other argument you may end up buying that product. Another aspect of advertising and internet interaction is the possibility that the person discussing this gadget may be working for the company that distributes the gadget, because of the anonymous nature of the internet we must always be skeptical of any "free advice" found on the internet.

Discussion questions week 4: #2

The advertisement I chose to review in this assignment was the above, an advertisement for the BMW 335i coupe. This advertisements utilizes mostly technological evidence to reinforce the original premise that this is the most powerful 3 series coupe ever built.

As an automobile enthusiast and a BMW owner I can trust this add as I've always been more than happy with the vehicles I've driven from BMW. As an enthusiast I can trust the statistics shown in this advertisement as I understand the significance of 300 horsepower, and how effective run-flat tires are. The question that is hard to determine without any bias is whether this add is reliable, from a personal point of view I would say this is a reliable add because I've dealt with this company before and I trust them. From the point of view of someone that has never purchased or driven a BMW though it is very hard to determine the how much this add can be trusted; however there are a few points in this advertisement that add some credibility to the initial premise, first the technological evidence is verifiable through research, secondly at the end of the advertisement BMW provides their mission statement to build the ultimate driving machine - if this were to be true then through common sense we can state that they would be trying to build the best vehicles possible.

Discussion questions week 4: #1

Repairing arguments is an important subject when considering human communication, the ability to change an argument in order to remove fallacies or add supporting evidence in order to change a poor argument into a strong or valid one.

An example of an argument in need of repair would be:
Dave's children are way too loud and out of control. Dave must be a bad father.

This argument needs to be repaired because of a lack of premise connecting the way Dave's children behave and the fact that Dave is a bad father. A proper sentence to interject after the first would be "Children misbehave and scream when there is a lack of a proper father figure." By adding this sentence after the first premise, but before the conclusion, the argument now becomes strong and valid. Through this slight addition we now have an initial believable premise, followed by a premise which provides evidence and delivers a logical progression to the final conclusion.

Discussion questions week 3: #3 Concept Review

The concept I found most stimulating in this week's reading was the section on mastering communication technology, found in the group communications text on pages 69-73. As a public relations major I find a balanced skill set in communicating through different channels is extremely important. The success of companies which make themselves easily available through the internet is astounding, although it's easy to get lost in all of the different communications channels found within the internet alone. The text outlines two areas which challenges are generated from, the first is the ability to understand technology as it continually changes and generates new innovative techniques within your field or organization. The second challenge stems from learning to use any available technology efficiently in order to bolster your communication skills. Today these two challenges are in the form of learning to use services like twitter, facebook, google advertising, and blogging effectively. Although these services are on the forefront of technology right now, we must be vigilant in finding and learning to use the next technological breakthrough effectively.

Discussion questions week 3: #1 Argument Structure

Exercise:
Las Vegas has too many people. (1) There's not enough water in the desert to support a million people (2). And the infrastructure of the city can't handle more than a million: (3) The streets are overcrowded (4), and the traffic is always congested (5); the schools are overcrowded, (6) and new ones can't be built fast enough. (7) We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county. (8)

Argument: Yes

Conclusion: Las Vegas has become overpopulated, to rectify this the city and county should implement harsh zoning laws to make it harder for the city to expand more.

Additional premises needed?: If 1+2+3+4+5+6+7 is true then 8 must be true and no additional premises are needed.

Identify any subargument: Point two begins a subargument about the city's problems, which lasts until point seven, points one and eight however are independent and the subargument supports point one which in turn supports the conclusion.

Good Argument: Yes, there are plenty of citations within this argument as to why Las Vegas is overcrowded.

I found this exercise to be quite difficult when I first attempted it, but after studying the chapter I've learned to identify structure within argumentative sentences much better. This particular example is interesting because the argument involves the writer going off on a tangent about just what was wrong with Las Vegas. I found this argument method effective; however because of the tangent the writer embarks on it could be said that the argument was formed poorly, but I believe the good execution outweighs that.

Discussion questions week 2: #1 Analysis of a good argument

For an argument to be considered good three tests must be passed: the premises must be plausible, the premises must be more plausible than the conclusion, and the argument must be valid or strong. These three tests are independent of one another, which means you must test for all three in order to determine whether the argument is good, as one can fail while the other two are fine. 

An example of a good argument would be:

"Jessica had a GPA of 4.2 in high school and an SAT score of 1800, Jessica is applying to SJSU and will attend in the fall if accepted. SJSU accepts all students with a GPA over 3.5 and an SAT score of 1700, Jessica will be attending SJSU in the fall."

This is a good argument because it fulfills all three tests of a good argument. First the premises are plausible, there is nothing to dissuade us from believing Jessica's scores, her want to attend SJSU, or SJSU's minimum admittance requirements. Secondly the premises are more plausible than the conclusion because the conclusion is based upon the premises being true, meaning even though the conclusion is spot on, it would be false if any of the preceding facts were incorrect. Finally the argument is valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and the same stands true if analyzing the sentence in reverse.

Discussion questions week 2: #2 Strong vs. Valid arguments

An argument is considered valid when the first premise and conclusion are impossible to prove wrong together. Valid arguments are not always strong arguments though because often details in between the first premise and the conclusion can be proved false which would prevent it from reaching a "strong" status.

An example of a valid argument would be: "Jessica is a performer. All performers party all night and sleep all day. Jessica parties all night and sleeps all day."

This argument would be considered valid because it's possible to prove Jessica is a performer, and we can also prove Jessica parties all night and sleeps all day. What we cannot prove however, is the statement that "All performers party all night and sleep all day." Since this middle statement cannot be proven this argument cannot be considered strong.

An argument is considered strong when the premises are viewed to be true while the conclusion may be false, although the conclusion may seem true in context.

An example of a strong argument would be: The Football players went to in-n-out after their practice, their captain, Edward, ate three double-doubles. Edward was not able to come to practice the next day because of stomach pains. Edward must have gotten sick because of in-n-out.

This argument is "strong" because the first premise is verifiable, as well as the second premise. The conclusion though is not verifiable, Edward could have gotten sick from any number of things; however likely it is that he got sick from the food.

Discussion questions week 2: #3 concept review

The concept I decided to review this week was the issue of Effective Leadership contained in the group communication text on page 36.
Effective leadership is often an essential skill for any college student to have, as many will end up in a leadership role sometime throughout their careers. The text outlines three important factors of effective leadership: Bringing about desirable outcomes, enhancing credibility with the group, and motivating participation  in group members.
An effective leader makes good use of these three points, while a lesser leader might fail to use one or more of these factors. This type of leadership often shows up in our everyday lives, including my own. Starting two weeks ago my boss noticed my coworkers and I were not working up to our potential, so in order to improve our performance he first brought us all in and did the job himself to demonstrate how to contact clients, establishing credibility. After this my performance improved significantly and I was receiving calls almost every day from my boss congratulating me, while at the same time this boss was making calls to my coworkers suggesting that they make use of some of my techniques, this is a great use of group motivation. After a week every employee had significantly increased their output, making a desirable outcome for my boss.

Discussion questions week 1: #3

The subject I chose to review from the text was communication apprehension. Communication apprehension is a subject I am well versed in, having experienced plenty of it throughout my early school years, up until my final years in high school. Communication apprehension is an important problem to be aware of because while you may think that you are simply acting shy, in a classroom or business setting it can cause results to suffer. Often communication apprehension is attributed to being shy, but often this is not the case, students can feel as though what they contribute is not worth the group's time which leads to a communication breakdown. To combat my problems with communication apprehension I took several public speaking classes over the years, as with most other things practice makes perfect. If you see someone suffering from communication apprehension the best thing to do is continually ask them for their input, this demonstrates that there is a value in their thoughts and that you will continue to seek their advice.

Discussion questions week 1: #2

Assignment 2) Use an example from everyday life: Describe a vague sentence or ambiguous sentence you have heard recently. Where did you hear this sentence? An advertisement? Was it a conversation with a friend? What qualified the sentence as vague or ambiguous?


Description of a vague/ambiguous sentence: A vague or ambiguous sentence is one that holds several different interpretations, often resulting from the use of words that hold several different meanings (ex: round, nothing.) The speaker determines what the true meaning of these sentences are, which causes confusion among listeners often.


Example of a vague/ambiguous sentence: Last night as I was talking to a friend about when he was going to arrive at my house I heard a vague sentence, the friend told me that he would be arriving at my house, "pretty late." This statement was vague because it did not help me decipher when he would be arriving at my house at all, was midnight late, or perhaps three in the morning was late? This statement made me ask another question to figure out exactly when he would be arriving, demonstrating a problem inherent in vague statements. There are some proper ways to use vague sentences though, most importantly when using questions, such as "Do you want all of this?" or "Can I get you anything else?" these types of open-ended questions allow the listener to respond in a precise manner.

Discussion questions week 1: #1

Assignment 1) Use an example from outside of the classroom. Discuss Subjective and Objective Claims. Give an example of a Subjective Claim you have heard or used recently AND give an example of an Objective Claim you have heard or used recently. Describe the situation. Describe the claims IN DETAIL.
Subjective claim definition:
A subjective claim is a claim based on personal opinion or preference. A subjective claim expresses an unverifiable belief, judgement, or feeling. This type of claim cannot be proven true or false, as the subject is opinion based. Often subjective claims are the basis for arguments.
Subjective claim example:
While I was discussing with my sister this weekend which law school she wanted to attend next year she stated: "I want to go to Yale because it's the best school in the country." This is an example of a subjective claim because there is no functional way to define the best school. While my sister believes that Yale is the best school, and perhaps could find some study that defines Yale as the top law school, there are many people who would argue otherwise and could present supporting material in their favor.
Objective claim definition:
An objective claim is a claim based on fact that can be verified by reliable sources. Objective claims are based on public knowledge or events. These type of claims can be stated as true or false and is not subjective.
Objective claim example:
I was talking to my father about sports and he said, "The Dodgers just won their last nine out of ten games." This claim would be categorized as objective because it is an easily verifiable fact, and is also an impersonal statement. 

Introductory Post

Hey everyone! I'm James, a second year public relations major here at SJSU. I'm involved on campus in greek life and I have a lot of experience in communications courses, so I'm excited about how different this class will be!