What I Liked About this Class

My favorite thing about this Comm41 class was that it was online and like many students, it gave us free time to blog whenever we wanted, and read/study throughout the week for homework assignments and tests. I learned a lot of Critical thinking throughout this semester by reading the many chapters that our professor assigned, which were really interesting. Who knew that everyone could relate to some of these concepts in daily life? I also liked working in groups because it allowed us to learn more about different concepts and allowed us to make new friends. My least favorite thing about this class was that if we did not understand a specific concept, we couldn't have the teacher explain it thoroughly in person. However, I know we have office hours, but it doesn't feel the same as having an in-person class, and actually having the teacher provide examples or participating in class activities. One thing that can be improved is maybe giving out smaller homework assignments where we could match key terms with the definitions.

Further Discussion

Concepts from the textbook that I think needs further discussion are the concepts of Euphemism and Dysphemism. "Euphemism is a word or phrase that makes something sound better than a neutral description" and "dysohemism is a word or phrase that makes something sound worse than a neutral description" (Epstein 182). I feel that we use these two concepts more than we realize in life. Think about how many times when you are telling a story and something happened that you exaggerate it a little and use more dramatic words to make what happened seem more interesting or significant, that is using euphemism or dysphemism. Or when you are trying to convince something, it won't be so bad so you choose words that make it more or less of what it really is. When can see these concepts in our daily lives, our school lives, work lives and with our government, these concepts are always taking part in what we are doing or saying.

Things I Learned

When I looked back on this past semester, I felt overwhelmed with how much I learned within a short period of time. I learned that the important thing about making a claim or argument is that the way you form them plays a very important role. This was the concept that stuck out most to me because people make claims every single day, whether they are good or bad. Depending on the way you form these arguments and claim determine if they sound good or bad, or if people will agree or disagree with you. Now that I have learned about these concepts, I know now to make claims that are too vague or misleading because they can be considered as fallacies. Misleading and vague claims will determine that your argument is weak and you will not be able to prove your point as strong or valid. I can easily say that people today come across many arguments and situations that involve debating or speaking their own opinions, and that they must understand that forming arguments will prove your point. I believe that many people will use the many concepts we learned throughout this semester in the future, regularly or even in their professional career.

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.

Drawing Diagrams for Validity

There can be valid or invalid forms in general claims. Valid claims are when the premises are true and lead to the conclusion. To check if a general claim is valid, you can draw a diagram. "It is an example of a way to check whether certain kinds of arguments that use general claims are valid" (Epstein, 164). Drawing a diagram helps to see if the premises of a claim is true as well. If there is no overlap between two topics, then that means the conclusion is most likely false. The main topic is generally represented in the center, where as the similarities or differences are overlapped within another. When one space overlaps the center, it means that both topics have something in common. When it does not overlap, it means that there is nothing in common to both topics. I personally have never actually tried drawing diagrams for validity, but who knows, maybe it can be really helpful!

First & Second Course Assignment

I think that the second course assignment was more helpful than the first one because assignment two had a lot more to do with learning and using the concepts that we have already covered in the book.. Assignment #2 gave me a better understanding of the concepts mentioned in Epstein's text since my group mates and I had to identify examples from real life from an organization. The second course assignment also allowed my group and I to analyze a certain organization and the importance of the organization. My group and I worked on an organization called PETA, which is an organization that is against animal cruelty. I have actually never heard of the organization before until this assignment. The website has many images and videos that show how animals are horribly treated. After analyzing and researching about PETA, it really helped me understand that there were certain fallacies in the organization.

General Claims

In Chapter 8 of Epstein's text, I learned about the general claims that consists of the words, all, some, only, no. I found this really helpful because I am currently enrolled in English 1b which is similar to this Critical Thinking course. Many generalizations are often made with these terms, which in fact, is not true. In the text, it defines the terms: all means "every single one, no exceptions;" some means "a few or at least one;" no means none at all; and only means no more than, or exclusively.
An example would be "All parents are so strict and mean." This is a hasty generalization because not ALL kids think their parents are strict or mean. Some parents are actually pretty nice and understanding. Plus, this seems like a subjective claim because it is one's opinion towards his or her parents. It could also be a person's own experience because of the way their parents treat them. This happens to a lot of my friends. They always tell me that their parents are so strict because they do not let them go out and hang out with their friends, but in reality, their parents might be doing the right thing. Parents want their kids to be safe and careful! On the other hand, some friends tell me that their parents let them do anything.

Contrapositives

In Chapter 6, I learned about the two claims that are both equivalent only if they are both TRUE. This is the necessary and sufficient conditions of a contra-positive claim. Contra-positive statements is when the claim and contra-positive are similar to each other. If the original proposition is true, then the contra-positive is true as well. For example, "All dishes have to be washed." --> "If you use the dishes to eat, you must wash them after." (if A, then B). If the proposition is false, then the contra-positive is false as well. A necessary condition of a claim is when A is necessary for B meaning if "If you do not pass English 1B, then you cannot enroll in English 1B." On the other hand, a sufficient condition is when A is sufficient for B. An example of this is "If you are a stranger and you touch me, I will scream because I do not know you."

Ch. 7 -- Counter-arguments

In Chapter 7, I learned about counter-arguments. Counter-arguments are arguments in which you use against an opposition, similar to objecting an objection. Objections is a way to identify that an argument is weak or bad.
Example of counter-argument:
Immigration is bad for the economy because they take jobs from Americans.
--> Immigrants are good for the economy because they will work for cheap labor which will increase jobs because of the increase of demand for crops and such.

Another thing I learned from reading Chapter 7 was "Refuting An Argument." Refuting an argument is when you show that the false premises lead to a false conclusion.It means that the argument is not strong not valid. However, it does not necessarily mean that a conclusion is false when you refute an argument. In order to refute an argument, we must make sure if there is a false conclusion, then the claims have to be plausible.

Ch. 6 -- Compound Claims

In Chapter 6 of the Epstein text, I have learned about the contradictory of a claim. "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" (Epstein, P 114). In other words. when a claim is stated, there may be contradiction to it, as in stating the opposite. In this chapter, there are two that I have learned: the "Contradictory of an OR claim," as well as a "contradictory of an AND claim." While the two terms. "and" and "or" mean two completely different things, both contradictory claims have different definitions as well. I have learned that the contradictory of an OR claim is when one or the other has contradictory. For instance, "I will pick up my brother at school, or I will go shopping." The contradictory of this statement is "I will go shopping and I will not pick up my brother." The contradictory of an AND claim is when both has contradictory. Example: Dogs can sniff really well, and they are colorblind. Dogs are colorblind, but cats are not.

Another thing I have learned in Chapter 6 is Reasoning from Hypothesis. People must have a legitimate hypothesis to have a good argument. (If A, then B). If A seems to be true or valid, then B is equivalent to A. A leads to B which will make sense. Example: If Annie is not a full-time student, then she is unable to receive financial aid.

Inferring & Implying

As I was reading Chapter 4 of the Epstein text, I thought Section E (Inferring & Implying) was an interesting concept to learn about. Sometimes I get the two mixed up and after reading this section, it helped me understand the difference a little more. The two words, "inferring" and "implying" have quite different meanings. Inferring is usually when a person comes to an unstated claim is the conclusion; a thought about something. When I "infer" something, it is usually inferred to a person or an animal. For example, if a person says something about your pet cat, he or she is usually inferring something about the dog. On the other hand, implying is usually when a person leaves a conclusion unsaid; in other words, suggesting something. For example, if you are doing horrible on your Math tests, and your teacher suggests that you should get tutored, your teacher is "implying." It may sound a bit confusing and you may get these two terms mixed up, it's actually very different.

Advertisements

LINK -- http://www.neutrogena.com/product/oil-free+acne+wash+pink+grapefruit+foaming+scrub.do?sortby=bestSellers

IMAGE -- 


The advertisement that I found on the internet was on the Neutrogena website. I looked up the information on an acne face wash called Oil Free Acne Wash Pink Grapefruit Foaming Scrub. The ad states that this acne scrub consists of Vitamin C and 100% of natural grapefruit extract, as well as tiny blue microbeads. The microbeads are polymer particles which go deep into blackouts and pores to clean out the dirt and oil on people's faces.


This relates to Sections A and B in Chapter 5 of the Epstein text because based on the evaluation premises (the test for accepting or rejecting a claim), the premises may be plausible, the argument can be valid or strong, and there is a good reason to believe the premises. Based on the three choices we can make in order to believe or reject a claim, I accept the claim as true because I have personal experience. "Our most reliable source of information about the world is our own experience" (84, Epstein). In order to trust and accept a claim, one must have personal experience because then we can rely on it. I recently bought this scrub and my face really did clear up after a couple of days. When I used it to wash my face every morning and night, it gave that feeling to my face as to where it felt more smooth and clear. As to other sources, we can accept that this claim is true by someone who is an expert in this area. My sister works at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco as a dermatologist assistant, and she had asked the doctor (her boss) if this type of scrub really helps clear acne. Her boss said yes; that is why I tried it.

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.

Introductory Post

Hello Comm41 class,
I am a 19 year old female who attends San Jose State as a second year. I was born and raised in San Francisco, California, but I now live in San Jose. My major is Pre-Nursing, but I am considering to minoring in either Child Development or Health Science. I have taken Communication Studies Speech class during my first year of college. Despite the fact that speeches were really nerve wrecking, I really enjoyed the class. Presenting speeches  gave me the opportunity to meet new friends, and to communicate with my classmates and professor. This is my first time taking an online class, and I am looking forward to taking it! =)