Week 16 – Post 3: Generalizing & Representative Samples

After reading chapter fourteen, I have a much greater understanding of generalization. According to Epstein, “We are generalizing if we conclude a claim about a group, the population, from a claim about some part of it, the sample. To generalize is to make an argument.” The problem with generalizing is that certain people are not representative of an entire group that is otherwise very similar. When coming up with samples it is very important to insure that each subgroup is represented in the population as a whole. In Critical Thinking, Epstein also states, “A sample is representative if no one subgroup of the whole population is represented more than its proportion in the population.” If the sample favors one subgroup more than the others, it is said to be a biased sample. Representative samples are important when gaining population opinions. For instance, if mostly women were asked if abortions were ethical, the statistics of this study would be biased. However, if men and women of many ethical backgrounds were asked the same question, the study would be much more representative of the general opinion of the population.

Week 16 – Post 2: What was your favorite thing about class? What was your least favorite thing about class? How can class be improved?

My favorite thing about this class was the freedom of being able to complete the weekly assignments anytime between Sunday morning and Saturday night. This is my first online class, and I definitely enjoyed the window our class had to complete the assignments. Furthermore, I liked that we were able to vote on whether or not to stay in our groups. I was very happy with the people I worked with. It was also nice to receive responses to my questions very quickly from the professor. My least favorite thing about the class was that the group projects were back to back throughout the semester. It would have been nice to have perhaps a one week break before having to start the next project. I also disliked that our online quizzes were timed. I personally become especially anxious when I must complete a task in a short amount of time. People are already nervous when taking tests without making the tests timed as well. If I were to improve the class, I would increase the time limits on quizzes to relieve students of the anxiety. I would also remove the 12 hour restrictions between posts. Students already must have their posts submitted by 11:59pm on Saturday night. Dragging out these due dates only makes the work more difficult for students to complete with their already busy schedules.

Week 16 – Post 1: What have you learned in this class over the course of the semester?

Over the course of the semester, I have learned a great deal about arguments and reasoning in the class. For instance, I was not aware that valid and strong arguments existed based on the definitions provided in Critical Thinking. I simply thought that there were good or bad arguments. I did not know that strong arguments were based on the slim probability that the premises of an argument could be true, and the conclusion false at the same time. I just thought that an argument was strong if it made sense and had evidence to support it. I was aware that many advertisements and politicians used emotion to gain support for their arguments, but I did not know that there were so many forms of Appeal to Emotion. After learning about Appeals to Pity, Appeals to Fear, and Appeals to Spite, it is much easier to see which angle these people are using emotion to try and gain my support. In addition to Appeals to Emotion, I learned about various fallacies such as Slippery Slope, False Dilemmas, Bad Appeals to Authority, Bad Appeals to Common Belief, and more. Learning about these fallacies has helped me to construct stronger arguments as well as distinguish between effective and poor arguments in my everyday life.

Week 13 - Post 3: Criteria for Cause & Effect

In chapter fifteen of Epstein’s Critical Thinking, the criteria for cause and effect relationships are thoroughly discussed. The example used in the book is that Spot’s barking is the reason Dick was woken up. I will use this example to explain these criteria. The first necessary criterion is, “The cause happened (the claim describing it is true).” Dick and his neighbor both agreed that Spot barked. Therefore, the cause happened, and the claim describing it was true. The second criterion is, “The effect happened (the claim describing it is true).” Clearly, Dick was woken up by the barking and wouldn’t lie about such an event. If he hadn’t been woken up, he would still be sleeping rather than arguing this point. The third criterion is, “The cause precedes the effect.” It is clear to see that Spot’s barking was the irregular factor that woke Dick up. Therefore, the fourth criterion, “It is (nearly) impossible for the cause to happen (be true) and the effect not to happen (be false), given the normal conditions,” would be true as well. The fifth criterion is, “The cause makes a difference – if the cause had not happened (been true), the effect would not have happened (been true).” Being as how Spot’s barking is loud and irregular, if it had not happened, Dick would not have been woken up at that time. The sixth criterion is, “There is no common cause.” Since there is no common factor that would cause Spot to bark and Dick to wake up, this criterion holds true as well. Because each of these criteria were truthfully met, it is safe to say that Spot’s barking was indeed the cause of Dick waking up.

Week 13 - Post 2: Mission Critical Website

Upon looking at the Mission Critical Website, I was initially a bit confused. But, after further reading, I realized that this website offers a great review for many forms of arguments and reasoning that I have already learned in the class. For instance, I am very familiar with vague and ambiguous sentences, inference indicators, and many of the fallacies at the bottom of the page. While we just went over inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and casual argument, the exercises on this page allowed me to practice with these concepts to gain a greater understanding of them. As I read over the fallacies, I realized that I was not familiar with the false equity fallacy or the false compromise fallacy. I learned that false equity occurs when someone hopes to make a good point just by covering both sides of the argument. It also seems that someone would use this form of argument when they lack the solid evidence they need to make one argument particularly thorough. I also learned that false compromise is a compromise that is incorrectly reached due to a lack of information and rushed decision-making. I agree with the website’s statement, “If the issues under debate are too complicated or specialized for us to make an informed decision, then we should suspend judgment, rather than create a false compromise.” I feel that knowing these fallacies will help me detect a greater number of weak arguments in the future.

Week 13 - Post 1: Cause and Effect Website

While I am somewhat familiar with casual arguments, I was not aware of significant differences until reading the Cause and Effect Website. First, I read over the website to gain an understanding of the material. I learned that the effectiveness of a casual argument is dependent on three principles. The website states that these principles are, “how acceptable or demonstrable the implied comparison is”, “how likely the case for causation seems to be”, and, “how credible the “only significant difference” or “only significant commonality” claim is.” The only aspect of these principles that I had difficulty with was the “only significant difference.” For example, the second question in the exercises that asked which reason would be considered the most significant “difference” proved to be challenging for me. While I selected “They all ate from the same bowl”, the answer was actually, “No one else at the picnic ate potato salad.” After reading the explanation, I realized that my answer was falsely based on the commonality of the ill people and not the difference separating them from the other well people. The exercises at the end of the website were definitely helpful in applying these concepts to an everyday situation.

Week 12 - Post 3: Evaluating an Analogy

Being able to evaluate an analogy is important especially when reasoning by analogy. In Critical Thinking, Epstein goes over seven steps that show how to do this. The first step is deciding if the analogy presents an argument. In addition, one must also determine what the conclusion is. The second step is figuring out what two circumstances are being compared. The third step in evaluating an analogy is locating the premises on both sides of the argument. The fourth step is finding the similarities between the two circumstances being compared. The fifth step in evaluating an analogy is answering Epstein’s question, “Can we state the similarities as premises and find a general principle that covers the two sides?” The sixth step is determining if the general principle can be applied to both circumstances. In addition, one must decide if the differences between the two circumstances are relevant or not. The final step in the evaluation process is determining if the argument is strong or valid. If one can successfully apply each of these questions to the example, the analogy will serve as a strong example in the argument.