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.