Repairing Arguments

Example -- Humans cannot fly. Therefore, Jenny cannot fly.
Analysis -- The premise that would make this argument strong or valid is "Jenny is a human being." Jenny could be either a human being, an animal, or insect.This is a logical argument, but it also needs to be repaired.The only statement that needs to be added is that "Jenny is a human." If we all know that Jenny is a human, then the argument would be both stronger and valid. A better way to state this argument is "Humans have never been able to fly, and since Jenny is a human, she obviously cannot fly." The argument is now complete and sounds better than the first sentence. The statement "Humans cannot fly" is common sense, and it does not need any additional background information.  However, the argument still needed to conclude that "Jenny is a human being" in order to make this argument valid and stronger.

Mentors

In Chapter 4 of the Small Group text, practicing mentors is quite important. A mentor is an older, experienced, and respectful member of an organization; as well as approachable and confident. Mentors generally assist other people because they have better understanding and knowledge of certain subjects. They also set out to be good role models for those who have less experience. Less-experienced members or employees are known as protege, and they must be open-minded and determined as well. Proteges benefit from being mentored because they learn new material, in which they will have better understanding of. The less-experienced are supported by their mentors only if they participate in the activities. There are four stages in mentoring: initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition. During the first stage of mentoring, the mentor and protege break the ice and get to know each other. In the cultivation stage, the mentor supports the protege with whatever they need. During the third stage (separation), both begin to drift due to transferring or being promoted to a different organization. In the redefinition stage of mentoring, the protege and mentors' relationship is evaluated. Even though it is the last stage, mentors can still give advice to proteges and help them with whatever they need.

Content Fallacies

As stated on page 201 of the Epstein text, the content fallacy, "Bad appeal to common belief" is " If almost everyone else (in this group) believes it or does it, then it is true (good to do)." This, in my opinion, is generally known as a "bandwagon." A bandwagon fallacy is similiar to the content fallacy because it is when everyone thinks or acts a certain way just because everyone else does it. As I searched for additional information for "Bad appeal to common belief" on google, it states that "If something is believed to be true by a lot of people then it must be true" (http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/common_belief.htm). When a person is unsure about something, they decide to ask other people, and tend to believe in the same thing.

One real-world example that I have heard in the past is "The Giants are going to win the World Series." This statement was assumed by many people because the Giants had won the first out of seven games for the World Championship game. A lot of people believed this because hundreds of Giants fanatics believed this.

Las Vegas!

#3

1. Las Vegas has too many people.

2. There's not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people.

3. And the infrastructure of the city can't handle more than a million: The streets are overcrowded, and traffic is always congested; the schools are overcrowded, and new ones can't be built fast enough.

4. We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.

Argument?: Yes (3).

Conclusion: We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.

Additional premises needed?: (2) It's exaggerated a little -- There aren't exactly a million people who live in Las Vegas.

Subarguments: 1,2,3 support the conclusion, 7.

Good argument?: The premises are plausible. I think more supporting details should be added into the paragraph; otherwise, this is a somewhat good argument.

I think this was a very useful exercise because by analyzing the paragraph, it helped me understand how to determine what kind of arguments are good and to identify conclusions.

Leadership

One of the concepts I thought was really interesting in the Essential Guide to Group Communication text was the different types of leadership. What exactly is leadership? The term, leadership, can be defined in many ways. It can mean leading something or someone, helping someone, or directing. In the text, leadership is basically defined as directing and influencing someone. The four different leaderships are explained throughout this chapter: authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire.
Authoritarian means leader and power. Leaders usually put others in control and makes the decision for others. In other words, it is similar to demanding or bossing someone around.. On the other hand, consultative leadership is when every group mate contributes their ideas and opinion on things. These leaders often ask their group what their opinion is, and gather up information before making a decision. Participative leadership is when a leader and group members work together. Hence the word, participate. Participating generally means working together. Both, the leader and group mates influence one another. Laissez-faire leadership involves no leadership at all. Group members pay little to no attention to the other group members. This leadership is considered as the least effective leadership style. For example, it is when a group mate does not try to contact other group members if they do not do it either.

Example & Analysis of the Three Tests

Part C in Chapter 3 of the Epstein text explains the three tests for an argument to be good. The first one is to
determine if the premises are believable; the second is to decide whether the premises are more reasonable
than the conclusion; and lastly, the third one is to decide if the argument is either strong or valid. An argument I came up with relating to the three tests is:

Example: Lee Pate's Aerobics class is extremely tiring, but entertaining. At the beginning of each class, she
warms everyone up by doing cardio for three minutes and then teaches the class new moves. During these
past two weeks of class, Lee Pate has taught us Zumba dancing, Cumbia, and Salsa dance moves. People
would definitely sweat in that class. This class is the best ever!

Analysis: The premises are true and this is a strong argument. However, it may not be valid because not
everyone thinks that Lee Pate's Aerobics class is the best class ever. There is a possibility that other Aerobic
classes are similar to Lee Pate, which may mean that the other classes are the best too. Most Aerobics
classes are very tiring, but they can also be really fun at the same time. The premises may be more
reasonable and believable than the conclusion.

Valid VS Strong

A valid argument is when both, the premise and the conclusion are true. A premise must be connected to the conclusion so that the argument is supported. People can back up their argument with supporting evidence. One example of a valid argument is that it takes me about 10-15 minutes to walk from home to school in the morning. My class starts at 9:30AM on Tuesday and Thursdays. Therefore, if I walk to school at 9:10-9:15AM, I will arrive to class on time.

A strong argument is when a premise is true and when a conclusion can be false. They are usually really hard to argue against because there are good evidence to support their claim. An example of a strong argument from my everyday life is my allergic reaction to crab. One night during dinner, I ate about five pieces of crab and my face started itching like crazy literally ten minutes later! Not to mention my arms too... Assuming that I might have been allergic to crab, I did not know it was for sure which means that my conclusion would have been false.. However, my mom brought me to the doctor's the next day and my doctor told me that I had an allergic reaction due to eating shellfish.

Question #3 - Subjectivist Fallacy

One concept from Chapter 2 of the book, Critical Thinking by Richard Epstein, that I have chosen was "Subjectivist Fallacy." The term subjectivist fallacy is when a person supports a sentence or conclusion that is subjective even though it is objective. When a person argues that an objective claim is false, it is a fallacy because it is a personal opinion. In other words, it is when a person disagrees that a fact is false. I recently watched a television show that was aired on ABC family called "Pretty Little Liars." In one of the episodes, a male student demanded his teacher that he should have received an A rather than a C on his essay. The teacher explained to the student that he had earned a C because his paper was not written very well. However, the student continued to disagree which led to an argument. It is an example of subjectivist fallacy because him deserving an A was his own opinion, not a true fact.

Question #1 - Discuss Subjective and Objective Claims

A subjective claim is based on opinions or feelings. Because it is based on personal opinions, it can be true or false. Subjective claims cannot be proven whether something is true or false by any means. On the other hand, an objective claim is based on facts instead of a person's opinion.
I recently bumped into an old classmate/friend who happened to be in the same Chemistry lecture class as me, and she mentioned about how much she liked the way our professor taught. This is a subjective claim because this is based on her own opinion. This was what she felt about our Chem professor. However, other students who are enrolled in the same lecture class may think that he is not a very good professor. Depending on how students like to learn, whether it is online or face to face, they have their own opinions and emotions about their professor. Therefore, this sentence can be both true or false. An objective claim I have recently heard was when I had a conversation with my mom. She was explaining to me how to cook a large amount of green vegetables. As we added water into the pot, my mom added salt before boiling the water. She told me that when you put salt in water, the water boils faster. Water with salt heats up faster and gets at its boiling point faster than regular water. This is a proven fact because in my Chemistry class, my professor gave an example in the book of how it takes less energy to raise the temperature of water that has salt. In addition, he told us to go on the web and research if it was true or not.

Question #2 - Vague/Ambiguous Sentences

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?


Vague is explained as something that is unclear or misunderstood. During the first week of Fall semester, I asked a random female student near the Greek booths where the Business Boccardi building was located. She told me that it was behind the Student Union building. As I walked towards the Student Union, I noticed several different buildings that were "behind" the Student Union. The term "behind" was unclear to me because if I was walking towards the Student Union from a different direction, I would have never knew where BBC was..


Ambiguous is often defined as something that has more than one meaning. An ambiguous sentence that I have heard recently is "Are you going to use this?" It was from a conversation with my roommate a few hours ago, in which she asked me this question while we were cleaning our room. This is considered as an ambiguous sentence because I had no idea what she implied "this" to. She could have meant that "this" was my laptop, textbooks, pens or pencils, etc.