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.

Week 12 - Post 2: Sign Reasoning

            After reading over the various forms of argument on the instructor’s blog, one of the types of reasoning that I found a bit more difficult to understand was sign reasoning. Upon doing more research on the topic, I found more information on a set of lecture notes from the University of Washington. The notes stated, “Inference says that one thing is a sign of another. It’s usually used in an argument that something is.” In other words, if one thing is present, the other thing is present. For instance, studying for several hours insures that a student will retain information. Furthermore, retaining information insures that the student will do well on their test. When looking at this example as a whole, it is clear to see that the good test score is associated with adequate studying. Without studying, the student would not have gotten such a good test score. Thus, A is only present if B is present. After doing further research, I have a much better understanding of sign reasoning.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:e4-BvGsHmz4J:courses.washington.edu/com234ce/Day%25204%2520Argument%2520Types.pdf+argument+by+sign&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi-hDRXJ281aQoAP06DPMoT6KC-5qp1CaGLpVi_KIUn8zqvWo6ANFMH8UyYRujsWvU9_5L0N1CTTOmD_6Kg1p0_ti66gxMPhtCAymmnrtBjDFsJ_SKfFFpSkY6ruENxOGoB1dSu&sig=AHIEtbQS1XwNL_0AxClP06syjbUknxIknA

Week 12 - Post 1: Forms of Reasoning

As mentioned in Professor Perez’s post, there are several forms of reasoning one can use to construct a good argument. Reasoning by analogy is when someone compares the argument in question to a similar argument. An example of reasoning by analogy would be, “The Psychology Department should offer online classes to accommodate more students. The Nutrition Department’s online classes have proven to be very successful in accommodating a larger amount of students.” Another type of reasoning is sign reasoning. Sign reasoning is a form of reasoning in which two objects are so closely related that when one is missing, the other is missing as well. An example of this would be a storm without any rain. Storms do not exist without intense weather conditions like rain, and sometimes even lightening. Another type of reasoning is casual reasoning. Casual reasoning is when the cause of something is altered or changed to prevent its proven effects. An example of this would be a teenager gaining weight from eating excessive amounts of fast food. In order to prevent the weight gain, the teenager would need to stop eating junk food and return to eating healthier foods. Another type of reasoning is reasoning by criteria. An example of this would be, “I know you’re trying to eat healthier. I’m told the salads are very good here.” This statement highly suggests that the person should eat a salad without directly saying that to them. Another type of reasoning is reasoning by example. Reasoning by example is when an example is used in an argument in order to successfully make a point. An example of this would be, “You should go to college. My friends without college degrees had a much harder time finding jobs.” Another example of reasoning is inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is when someone makes all assumptions about something based on past experiences with that object or circumstance. An example of this would be, “There was traffic last Monday on my way to work. I should leave earlier next Monday because there will probably be traffic again.” Another type of reasoning is deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is when an argument is made and then followed by a premise that deduces the reasoning to one final circumstance. An example of this would be, “College students have to pay tuition. Ryan is a college student. Therefore, Ryan has to pay tuition.” Clearly, each of these arguments can prove to be very effective in the proper situation.

Week 11 - Post 3: Apple Polishing & Appeals to Vanity

In chapter ten of Critical Thinking, Epstein also discusses the emotional appeals known as Apple Polishing and appeals to vanity. Apple Polishing, in itself, is an appeal to vanity. An example of an appeal to vanity would be a make-up commercial. For instance, a commercial for Maybelline mascara will go over the aspects of their product extensively to show their viewers that their product will make them look beautiful. The part of the commercial that talks about how longer lashes will make you look prettier is an appeal to vanity. Discussing the “new formula”, how it separates lashes perfectly, and refuses to clump is an example of Apple Polishing. Apple Polishing allows companies to thoroughly present why their product is the best. Naturally, every detail they mention is not going to be completely true because other companies with the same product say the exact same thing in their commercials. Nonetheless, these appeals help companies succeed in advertising and selling their product.

Week 11 - Post 2: Chapter 10 Exercise #3

Exercise #3: Find an advertisement that uses an appeal to fear. Is it a good argument?

            One type of ad that I constantly see using appeals to fear is the car insurance advertisements for Allstate Insurance. Rather than simply stating that their rates are lower than other insurance companies, they rely on footage of accidents or scary facts about auto-related deaths. I found an example of one of Allstate’s advertisements for teen driving on YouTube. The teenagers are all in cars lined up and driving along a dark road. They look happy at the start of the commercial, but at the end they show the sad look on one teen’s face from the back window of the car as they drive off into the distance. The commercial states, “Every year nearly 6,000 teenagers go out for a drive, and never come back.” They end the commercial by telling their viewers to sign up for Allstate’s “Parent-Teen Driving Contract.” In this case the argument is a bad because a contract with an insurance company is not what is going to make your teenager drive more carefully. Instead, teens should be taught safe driving methods by their parents or a driver’s safety class. However, insurance companies will try to scare parents into thinking that their teen is more likely to get into a fatal car accident if they do not have a service offered by the company.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JAV-_PXSck

Week 11 - Post 1: Appeals to Emotion

In chapter ten of Critical Thinking, Epstein goes over appeals to emotions and how they are used in arguments. He states, “An appeal to emotion in an argument is just a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way.” There are also several different types of appeals discussed in this chapter. Three of these appeals are appeals to pity, appeals to fear, and appeals to spite. An appeal to pity is an appeal used to get people to do something by making them feel sorry for someone. An example of such an appeal is the ASPCA commercials that show beaten and homeless animals with sad music playing in the background. These commercials are unstated claims trying to get people to donate to the organization by making them feel sorry for the animals shown in the commercial. Appeals to fear are those usually used in advertisements that are commonly used to scare people into doing something or buying something. For example, car insurance companies often show accidents taking place in their commercials before they begin discussing their low rates. Another type of appeal is the appeal to spite. Appeals to spite are those that reject an idea or action in hopes of obtaining revenge. An example of this appeal would be if one employee refused to take their co-worker’s shift because the co-worker refused to take the employee’s shift last week. The appeal to pity is the type of appeal that makes me fall for these types of arguments. When I feel sorry for people or animals, I am much more likely to give in and help them. While these are not proper ways to construct an argument, they usually prove to be fairly successful in advertisements.

Week 9 - Post 3: Proof Substitutes & Shifting the Burden

As I was reading through the concealed claims section of Epstein’s Critical Thinking, I realized that proof substitutes and shifting the burden were a bit more confusing to me than I had originally anticipated. A proof substitute is when the person presenting the argument pretends to have proof or statistics on the topic they are presenting, when in fact, they really have no clue themselves. A site I found for Bellevue Community College also states, “If the speaker does not actually cite any study, and does not give any supporting evidence, then they have not offered any evidence for the claim.” Looking into this topic a bit further helped me understand the idea of proof substitutes more.

            Another topic I wanted to research further was shifting the burden. Shifting the burden is when a speaker turns their argument over to the audience in such a way that the audience feels obligated to complete their debate with evidence. The Kennesaw University website states, “If someone claims to know a fact, always look at its source. If the arguer cannot validate or justify his own remarks, then they probably are not valid (and cannot be considered valid anyway until proven otherwise).” Understanding these argument tricks is important when evaluating whether or not someone is making a strong argument in the future.

http://bellevuecollege.edu/lmc/ilac/Curric/kint/phil7.htm

http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-distract-shiftburden.htm

Week 9 - Post 2: Usefulness of First & Second Course Projects

The first course project, “Critical Thinking in News and Politics” was helpful to my studies in many ways. When my group divided up the project sections amongst us, my job was to complete section “D.” This section required me to find a description in the editorial as well as describe the difference between a description and an argument. After completing this section, it was easy to distinguish between general descriptions and actual arguments being made in editorials and other articles. In addition, I was able to practice these concepts for the midterm as well as practice my writing skills when I completed my individual paper.

            The second course project, “Critical Thinking and Social Organizations” is proving to be effective to my learning as well. The organization my group chose to investigate was PETA. By studying this organization, I have learned how group use devices such as concealed claims and appeals to emotion to gain support for their cause. Furthermore, I have learned how to investigate the social issues the group claims to support. These skills will undoubtedly be effective later in my education when I need to research different social groups for other papers or projects.

Week 9 - Post 1: Contradictories & Valid Forms of General Claims

When using general claims in an argument it is very common to see contradictory words such as “all,” “some,” “no,” and “only” in each premise. These words are meant to either generalize or specify within an argument. For example, “All students will get an “A” in their Critical Thinking class,” is a weak argument because it is very likely that at least one person will only get a “B” in the class. To strengthen this argument, a better choice of words would be, “Some students will get an “A” in their Critical Thinking class.” The second argument is much stronger because it is highly likely that at least one person will achieve an “A” in the course.

            Examining valid forms of general arguments is much easier when viewing the argument from a diagram like those used in chapter eight. When creating these diagrams, only subcategories of the larger topic can be placed in smaller circles within the bigger circle. For example, I could make the argument, “Some dogs are trained. Some trained pets live in San Jose. So, some trained dogs live in San Jose.” Of course, this argument would be mapped differently because it does not contain a main category and subcategory. Instead, the “Dogs” circle would overlap the “Trained Pets” circle, which would then overlap the “San Jose” circle. The reason for this is that not all dogs are trained, and not all trained pets live in San Jose.

Week 7 - Post 3: Contrapositives, Necessary & Sufficient Conditions

When Epstein discussed compound claims in chapter six, I found the topic of contrapositives to be interesting. A contrapositive was defined by Epstein as, “The contrapositive of If A, then B is If not B, then not A.” For instance, if the claim in an example was, “The student will do well in her Critical Thinking class because she studies,” then the contrapositive of the claim would be, “The student will not do well in her Critical Thinking class because she does not study.” Because the first part of the original claim was true, the second part of the original claim was true. In other words, the first claim was a sufficient condition because the truth of B was reliant on the truth of A. Furthermore, because the first part of the second claim was false, the second part of the second claim was false as well. Thus, the second claim was a necessary condition because the falsehood of B was reliant on the falsehood of A.

Week 7 - Post 2: Directly & Indirectly Refuting an Argument

When directly refuting an argument, Epstein describes three ways to assist your refutation. These three ways are to, “Show that at least one of the premises is dubious”, “Show that the argument isn’t valid or strong,” and “Show that the conclusion is false.” The example in the book is about killing flies. The person believes that it is useless to kill flies because the faster flies will evade him and survive to reproduce more fast flies. This example could be directly refuted because it can be proven that the argument is not valid or strong. There is a great possibility that extremely fast flies will not be produced after the so-called slow flies are killed. Therefore, the argument is very weak and it is extremely likely that the conclusion is false.

            When indirectly refuting an argument, it is harder to pinpoint why the argument sounds unusual or dubious in one premise, but it is evident that the argument is not valid or strong. Epstein explains that in order to indirectly refute an argument, you need to “reduce the absurd.” He defines this as, “showing that at least one of several claims is false or dubious, or collectively they are unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them.” The example in the book of a woman arguing against the logic of fly-killing is an example of a certain type of reducing the absurd called “refuting by analogy.” Her refutation of the fly argument was successful because she compared it to that of killing germs or chickens. Killing these things would not produce superhuman germs or chickens. Thus, this form of refutation was successful when argued in an indirect manner.

Week 7 - Post 1: The Contradictory of a Claim & False Dilemma

In chapter six of Critical Thinking, Epstein discusses the contradictory of a claim. The contradictory of a claim is one that has the opposite value of the truth no matter how it is presented. An example of such a contradictory claim would be, “Nick will walk the dog tomorrow morning,” and, “Nick will not walk the dog tomorrow morning.” No matter which way this statement is presented, the opposite meaning will always present itself when the statement is contradicted.

            Another topic discussed in chapter six was false dilemma. Epstein defines false dilemma as, “a bad use of excluding possibilities where the “or” claim is false or implausible.” An example of such a claim would be, “Food costs money and you have no money. You can either stop eating or get a job.” Obviously, you cannot stop eating because your body needs nutrients to survive. Therefore, the only solution presented here would be to get a job to pay for food. In reality, there are other ways of obtaining food for poor or unemployed people. This is why the example I gave was a false dilemma. If the person could really not buy food, they could go to a soup kitchen for meals or even be put on federal assistance such as food stamps.

Week 6 - Post 3: Criteria for Accepting or Rejecting Claims

In chapter five of Critical Thinking, Epstein goes over the criteria for either accepting or rejecting a claim. One of the major criteria for evaluating claims is based on personal experience. If a person knows that a piece of information is true based on their experience, it is perfectly acceptable to find the claim valid. The same can be said about rejecting claims. Epstein’s only exceptions to this rule are if, “We have good reason to doubt our memory or our perception,” or, “The claim contradicts other experiences of ours, and there is a good argument (theory) against the claim.” An example of such an exception could be an elderly person having doubt about information they have witnessed due to declining memory. It is also fine to accept a claim made by an informed source that is not being influenced by money from biased sources. For example, your family doctor will always provide truthful information regarding your health because they care for your well-being. Finally, it is safe to accept claims found from trustworthy sources such as peer-reviewed journals or media sources whose sponsors are not biased on the topic you are researching. By following these guidelines, it is much easier to decide which claims are truthful and which ones should be rejected.

Week 6 - Post 2: Advertising on the Internet

Advertising on the internet has become more annoying than commercials on television. Even when you watch videos online, you are forced to watch a commercial before it starts. Not to mention, there are numerous ads on the sidebar of popular websites. For instance, I visited three different websites recently and saw ads for credit cards, new cars, and two different car insurance companies. The ad that I decided to investigate was for Progressive Auto Insurance. The ad reads across the top, “Progressive offers lots of discounts. See how you could save hundreds.” Next to this there is a button to push that states, “Get you free quote.” Upon clicking on the ad and providing your zip code, you are transferred to a different page that requests your personal contact information. Naturally, this would result in an unsuspecting person receiving piles of junk mail trying to get them to sign up for their insurance in the future. While they try to make these ads look friendly, they really just want people to sign up for their service. Most people will not “save hundreds” by switching from their old insurance company. If the prices were so incredibly low, they would be shown without requiring people to enter in personal information to try and hook them later after they have already closed the website window.

http://www.progressive.com/insurance/cre/display.aspx?&code=9903600306

Week 6 - Post 1: Repairing Arguments

The problem with many arguments is that they do not possess the proper premises to support their conclusion. An example of such an argument would be, “College students have too many expenses to pay. Therefore, a college student should not buy a new car.” In this example, the argument is stated, but there is not premise to support the conclusion. This example needs more detail to support the argument in question. By adding, “New cars are very expensive and require that monthly payments be made over several years,” the conclusion is justified much better. It is a well-known fact that college students face several expenses such as tuition, the cost of books, housing, and much more. As a result, this statement can stand on its own. However, the conclusion does not say why students should not buy a new car. By explaining the financial hardships of car payments, it is now clear why a student would not want to add another bill on top of the several they are already paying. By repairing these statements, the argument becomes much stronger.

Week 4 - Post 3: Mentoring for Communication in Organizations

Chapter four of O’Hair and Wiemann’s The Essential Guide to Group Communication has an interesting section on the benefits of obtaining a mentor. The mentor is an experienced member of a group willing to train a new-comer. The person seeking this experienced organization member is called the “protégé.” The book notes four important steps that are common in the relationship between the mentor and protégé. The first stage is the “Initiation” stage. During this stage, the mentor begins teaching their knowledge to the protégé. Additionally, they begin building a standard relationship. The second stage is “Cultivation.” According to O’Hair and Wiemann, “the mentor and protégé begin to form an interpersonal bond.” The mentor starts to look out for and show considerable respect for the protégé. The third step is “Separation.” At this point, the protégé has learned enough in the organization to be considered an established member. Thus, the two slowly drift apart because the protégé is no longer so reliant on the mentor. The fourth stage is “Redefinition.” During this final stage, the mentor and protégé reunite as equals in the organization now that they hold similar positions. Clearly, the assistance of a mentor can be a promising training tool for any new member of an organization.

Week 4 - Post 2: Content Fallacies

The fallacy I chose to explore was Phony Refutation. In this case, a person acts in a certain way or says something that goes against what they believe or are arguing in favor of. This fallacy argues that if a person acts against the argument they were trying to make, they must not support their own conclusion. Thus, the argument they made would be considered a poor one. I remember a particular example of this fallacy when I was taking Public Speaking during my first year at SJSU. A girl in my class was doing a speech on the negative aspects of red meat. She spoke on every detail of the topic from green house gases to the negative effects of red meat on one’s health. When she finished her speech, I asked if she was a vegetarian or if she at least refrained from eating red meats. She reluctantly replied that she did eat red meats. The fact that she argued the negative aspects of eating red meat while continuing to consume it herself made her argument appear far less effective at the end of her speech. Perhaps if she were aware of this fallacy she would haven chosen a different topic to speak on that she could fully support.

Week 4 - Post 1: Complex Arguments for Analysis

The argument I chose to analyze for this exercise was example number one. The argument in this example is, “My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.” The plaintiff in this case used 3 claims to support his original argument. Claim A is, “People do not like living next door to such a mess.” Most people would agree that they like living next to well-kept houses, so this claim is true. Claim B is, “He never drives any of them.” The neighbor may frequently see the cars in the owner’s yard, but there could have been a time that it was driven while the plaintiff was away at work. While the probability of this is low, it is still a possibility. Claim C is, “They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place.” The first part of this claim is a matter of opinion, while the second part is a solid detail. The plaintiff would need to include additional premises to support their argument that are not simply a matter of their opinion. For instance, if the cars were illegally parked or unregistered, there would be legal reasons to either fine the owner or remove the cars. Because the neighbor uses simple opinion for the majority of his claims, the argument is not very strong. While the final sentence to this example is, “It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values,” this appears to be more like a sub-argument than a conclusion. A better conclusion would be, “Based on the excessive mess, lack of use, and mechanical problems of the neighbor’s cars, he should be forced to get rid of the cars in his yard.” Overall, I feel this exercise was effective because it allowed me to break down complex arguments piece by piece in order to learn how to analyze them.

Week 3 - Post 3: The Process of Group Decision-Making

As mentioned in O’Hair and Wiemann’s The Essential Guide to Group Communication, there are 8 steps to the proper decision making process when working in a group. The first step is to identify the problem. The members of the group must analyze the issue at hand and then collaborate to propose a solution to the problem. The second step is conducting research. Each group member must seek out additional information to gain a greater understanding of their topic. Thirdly, the group should establish guidelines and criteria. By establishing these guidelines, the members will have a means by which to evaluate their proposed solutions. The fourth step is generating alternatives. At this point, the group leader and the members should come up with as many possible solutions to their problem as possible. The fifth step to this process is evaluating the alternatives the members have come up with. From this point, the group must select the best alternative and then implement this solution in steps 6 and 7. These steps are crucial to the entire process because they evaluate and decide the solution to the entire problem. Finally, the group must evaluate the results of their chosen solution to determine how effective it was in solving their problem. If groups work together to follow these steps, they are far more likely to be successful in their decision-making process.

Week 3 - Post 2: Valid and Strong Arguments

A valid argument is an argument in which there is no remote possibility that either the premise or the conclusion is true while the other is false at the same time. An example of such an argument would be, “In order to pass Chad 60 I was required to complete 2 exams and 20 service hours. I performed all of these requirements in the allotted time. Therefore, I passed the course with a good grade.” A strong argument is one that can be subjected to any unlikely possibility, and both the premise and the conclusion will remain true. An example of a strong argument that I often hear in everyday life is, “Diet and exercise are an important part of a healthy lifestyle. So, eating plenty of nutrient-rich foods and being physically active on a daily basis will make you healthy.” For most people, this combination would result in healthful benefits. But, there could be a small amount of people who face specific health problems that continue to threaten there health or keep them overweight despite their diets and physical activity. Nonetheless, this would be considered a strong argument because it holds true with the majority of the population.

Week 3 - Post 1: Tests for a Good Argument

Upon reading chapter 3 of Epstein’s Critical Thinking, I have become much more familiar with the criteria of good arguments. An example of such an argument would be, “Chris is a good student. He studies several hours every day. He will earn good grades in his classes.” This example meets the first criteria of being a good argument because the premise is truthful and reasonable. It is possible for Chris to be a good student, even before the argument is made. The second criterion for this to be a good argument is that the premise must be more realistic than the conclusion. In this example, Chris could still be considered a good student for paying attention, participating in class, and showing a greater overall interest in the subject matter compared to the other students. He would not necessarily need to obtain a grade of “A” to be considered an exceptional student in each of his classes. A grade of “B” is still considered above average. The third criterion of a good argument is that the argument be strong and credible. The argument I made in this example was that Chris would receive good grades because he studies several hours each night. A strong argument is one that can be subjected to other possibilities, no matter how rare they are, and still prove to be true. My example would also pass this test because although there may be a slight chance Chris could study thoroughly and do poorly in the class, it is very unlikely this would happen. It is far more likely that his excessive studying would result in the positive possibility of exceptional grades.

Week 2 - Post 3: Descriptive and Prescriptive Claims

As I was reading through chapter two of Epstein’s Critical Thinking, I came across the section on descriptive and prescriptive claims. I chose to write on this topic because I encounter these types of claims rather frequently in my everyday conversations. A descriptive claim is a statement that says exactly what it means. For example, “Ryan gets sunburns easily,” states exactly what it means. My boyfriend is currently working on a roofing job and is subjected to direct sunlight for several hours each day. As result, he has become fairly sunburned. A prescriptive claim is a sentence that suggests what should happen in a situation. In this case, my prescriptive claim would be, “Ryan should wear sunscreen.” This claim was made by looking at the problem and then suggesting an action that would serve as a solution. Obviously, if Ryan were to put on sunscreen regularly, he would not have to face the issue of being sunburned.

Week 2 - Post 2: Vague Sentences

Yesterday a friend and I were discussing our class schedules for this semester. Seeing as how we are both nursing majors, it was not uncommon to see so many science classes on our agendas. As we were talking, she pointed to her chemistry book and said, “This class is hard.” Her statement was so general that I had to have her elaborate to understand her feelings on the matter. Such a statement would be considered vague because its specific meaning could not be pinpointed. Her idea would have been far easier to comprehend if she had mentioned what specifically made the class challenging. A vague sentence is a statement thats meaning is so broad or undefined that an individual cannot target its specific meaning. White sentences such as these make for bad arguments, and even the occasional poor conversation, they are extremely common in everyday dialogue. Despite my efforts to avoid using vague sentences, I find that they still slip into my daily conversations.

Week 2 - Post 1: Subjective and Objective Claims

A subjective claim is a statement based on an individual’s personal beliefs or opinions. For example, my boyfriend recently took me out to dinner. As we received our food, I looked over at him and said, “Steak is disgusting. How can you eat that?” The steak would not look unappetizing to other customers, but it did to me. Thus, the statement I made was a subjective claim. An objective claim is a factual statement that is not influenced by personal opinion. Yesterday my dad walked into the house and said, “Wow, it’s hot outside.” Others would agree with this statement because the temperature was, in fact, much higher than usual. Because the statement was factual and not based on his opinion alone, it would be considered an objective claim. However, if my dad had made the same statement in 60 degree weather, it would be his personal opinion. The weather outside would not be exceptionally higher than normal, and most people would not agree with him. Therefore, it would be considered a subjective claim. After studying these claims, I have learned that subjective claims would be more effective in pushing an idea or trying to persuade someone of something. On the other hand, objective claims are important when passing on true and unbiased information in places like schools.

Introductory Post

Hi everyone,

My name is Samantha and I'm a junior at SJSU. My major is Nursing and my minor is Child and Adolescent Development. I hope to enter the nursing program in the next year depending on my success in adding classes. My communication experience includes group projects at school, Comm 20 at SJSU, and public speaking both at school and at work. My interests include my friends, swing dancing, movies, and music.