Chapter 15 -- Cause & Effect in Populations

In Chapter 15 of the Epstein's text, I learned about Cause & Effect in Populations. The textbook states that "cause in populations is usually explained as meaning that given the cause, there is a higher probability that the effect will follow than if there weren't a cause. (Epstein, 320). The example that the chapter provides is about how smoking causes cancer. Like the DUI example, it isn't always true, but it is a fact that if someone smokes for such a long period of time, then cancer will eventually develop in one's body. As well as if someone drink and drive, they will eventually get caught one day.
 Generally, I have noticed that a lot of people generalize claims that involve large populations and in cause & effect situations. We make claims that if you do a, then b will happen (such as the example given in Chapter 15). Some generalized claims may be true or false. What we are doing when we make generalized claims about a population is called a "Cause in Populations."

Mission Critical

What I liked most about the Mission Critical website was the part where I participated in. When I clicked on the answer to the question, it explained why I would choose that certain answer and why it was either correct or wrong. When I answered the questions, I was able to find out if it was the right answer or wrong answer, which I find really useful. It helps me A LOT when something is analyzed and explained in further details. I thought that the Mission Critical website was quite useful because it had a lot of information about the key concepts our class has covered throughout this semester. The website was well-organized and convenient as to clicking the links to read something I was interested in reading. However, I felt like everything was kind of blended in together, like the colors of the hyper-links were hard to read while there were multi-colored bullet points.

Cause & Effect

What I found most useful on the Cause & Effect website was reading the examples. It really helped me understand how cause and effect works in real-life situations, whereas almost everyone can relate to them. On the website, there are several examples about how people have driven, have rode a bike, or even have seen accidents. Reading the Cause & Effect website helped me realize that not everyone stops and thinks about the similarities or differences by reasoning, as well as coming up with our own opinions how "something" like accidents can happen anywhere and anytime. I think Cause & Effect situations can be a helpful way of forming a good argument by listening to what a person has to say first. By listening to the other person's argument, a person may be able to pick up and understand something better.

Fallacy of Composition

In Chapter 12 of the Epstein's textbook, there are many examples on judging analogies. One of them is called "fallacy of composition." This term means whether or not something is true just because another individual or group believes it is true. Fallacy of composition reminds me of Generalization because things are usually assumed without more information. If something is true for an individual, then it is true for a group. Vice versa as well. An example to give better understanding is: A bus causes more pollution than a car. Therefore, cars are less of a pollution problem than buses." This may or may not be valid or strong. Most transportation would cause pollution, and people do not really know whether it is true or not. If one person said that buses make more pollution than cars, then other groups and individuals would believe so. Many people draw analogies between people and bigger groups, but they usually have no premises. Therefore, people would not be convinced that something is true or not.

The Confusing Type

In my opinion, the most difficult type of reasoning for me to understand was "Reasoning by Criteria." To understand this type of reasoning more and to help clarify things, I researched more information on Criteria Reasoning. As stated on Dictionary.com, the term criteria means "a rule or principle for evaluation or testing something." In order to understand this type of reasoning, one must state and analyze the criteria that is given, and then figure out which criteria works best for the situation. A person must decided whether or not if the criteria is a valid one. In most cases, people often assume that the criteria is valid or strong because it is a common value. Therefore, it does not need further explanation or need to be analyzed. The criteria that seems the most common are usually accepted very easily, and is accepted as a reasonable and legitimate statement. 

Reasoning Examples

On the instructor's blog, there are several types of reasoning: Reasoning by Analogy, Sign Reasoning, Causal Reasoning, Reasoning by Criteria, Reasoning by Example, Inductive Reasoning, and Deductive Reasoning. An example of each reasoning are:


1) Reasoning by Analogy - " Studies have shown that beyond a discreet level of wealth, additional money does not make people happier. Therefore by analogy, fame does not make us happier beyond a modest level of appreciation."


2) Sign reasoning (when two or more things are similar or states the obvious) - "The ground is wet outside; it must have rained earlier."


3) Causal Reasoning (something that is expected from cause to effect) - "My brother's ankle was injured, probably because of baseball conditioning. " 


4) Reasoning by Criteria (things are discussed before judging whether they are right or wrong) - "Your mom probably wants something for dessert. Let's just get her Apple pie."


5) Reasoning by Example (the use of examples in an argument) - "You should eat less carbs if you want to lose weight. I had a friend who lost 10 pounds in a week!"


6) Inductive Reasoning (arguing from a general to more specific topic) - "All the swans in the lake are white. Therefore, all swans are white." 


7) Deductive Reasoning (arguing from a specific topic to a more general view) - "Watch out for wasps..They might sting you." 

Appeal of Pity

One interesting concept I have not wrote about in my blogs is the Appeal of Pity in Chapter 10 of the Epstein's text. Not only do we come across Appeal of Fear, Appeal of Spite, etc, Appeal of Pity is generally one of the main ones. The Appeal of Pity is when someone tries to convince the audience to agree with something through sympathy. Some people will feel sad and guilty, which makes them feel the need to take action or say something. Some people show images of someone or something and tries to make a statement so that others will have sympathy and help out. An example of this would be a person showing a photo of a family who looks unhealthy, or who has a small amount of  clothes on. The audience will probably feel horrible and eventually donate clothes, shoes, or other things to help out, and make them feel better.

Chapter 10 - Exercise #3

An advertisement I found was on the Stanford website. I searched up "Fear Advertisements" and this is what Google gave me. http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist34/advertisements/fear%20ads/pages/rogaine_jpg.htm

This ad basically uses an appeal to fear. With images and a persuasive statement that Rogaine will definitely help you grow more hair and keep the hair you want, people would purchase the item. The fear advertisement gives reason that Rogaine is "clinically proven" to work 100%. However, they do not prove that this item really works. There is also a tiny subscript that says "Not everyone responds to Rogaine." What exactly does this mean? Do they like this product? Does it really work for them? In my opinion, this advertisement is not a very good argument. It may show fear to men since it is mainly for when men lose hair, but it does not give description about the product. It does not seem legitimate to me. 

Appeal to Emotion

As stated in Chapter 10 of Epstein's text, "An appeal to emotion in an argument with a prescriptive conclusion can be good or not," and "An appeal to emotion with a descriptive conclusion is bad, if the appeal cannot be deleted as premise." There are many types of appeal to emotion such as the Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Spite, and Appeal to Vanity. The one that caught my attention the most was Appeal to Fear, because it is often used by advertisers, politicians, etc. This type of appeal is used to manipulate people by using fear as the main factor.  An example of this is that if there is an ad that says children at age 10 will develop a specific disease, there is a medicine that will prevent it from happening. However, this is only to "scare" people, specifically parents, in which they will eventually purchase the medicine. In my opinion, Appeal to Fear is very interesting, yet scary because a lot of people may not realize that the many things we buy are because of the ads or comments made by advertisers, politicians, and even marketers. I think everyone comes across Appeal to Fear every single day.