Casual Arguments

I felt that learning the basic concepts of casual arguments supplemented what was in the book. The example was somewhat helpful, but it was nice on how they elaborated more about the same example. Also, doing the exercises were able to help me figure out what I need to review about the subject. The site also provided links to other topics if we wanted more understanding on a particular concept. After going through this site, I find it easier now to decipher the cause in events, rather than just pointing at what seems to be the obvious. Causation must be proven with a strong correlation to the actual event.

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

I found both inductive and deductive reasoning somewhat challenging to fully understand after just reading Wikipedia's versions. After reading more examples and some of my classmates' postings, it was a lot easier to understand. I now know that inductive reasons are essentially educated guesses. For example, if a pattern or trend were to occur, it would easy to assume that that occurrence would continue. On the other hand, deductive reasoning is concluding from a set of premises similar to the logic where "If A then B. If B then C. Therefore, if A then C." What confused me was that I thought they were polar opposites of each other. However, after further research, they were just different types of reasoning, not necessarily opposites.

Reasoning Examples

1). Reasoning by Analogy
When a little kid tells his/her parents "If my brother/sister is getting a toy, I should get one too."

2). Sign Reasoning
"I could smell the food from here. We must be close to the restaurant."

3). Causal Reasoning
"If the star player does not play in this game, his team won't perform as well as it should."

4). Reasoning by Criteria
"The Dallas Cowboys team lack discipline. The coaches should make more of an effort to hold players accountable for their mistakes."

5). Reasoning by Example
"I once had a friend that had to go to the hospital because he drank too much. If I were you, I would probably cut down."

6). Inductive
"I was late for work today because I overslept and got caught up in traffic. Tomorrow, I wake up a bit earlier than I thought I had to so I can get to work on time."

7). Deductive
"Forgetting to pay your bills on time will hurt your credit. He hasn't paid his bills on time. So his credit score is getting lower."

Question #3

This advertisement uses appeal to fear because it illustrates the potential side effects of cigarette smoke. It was used to scare smokers into quitting by showing a former smoker with a hole in his throat and having to be aided by a device that allows him to speak. I feel that this was a good argument because there is no way around the side effects of smoking. Smoking can only harm you and others around you and this ad shows that quitting is the only real solution.

Appeal to Emotion

Often, emotions get the best of people and cause us to do things we can't really explain into words. Appeals to emotions in arguments are premises that make a person behave to believe something because of how they feel. For example, politicians mostly use ads that attack their opponents and make themselves not look as bad. Voters are in turn worried about these candidates. This is an example appeal to fear.

Appeal to pity struck me more mainly because it's hard to turn down someone or something in need. Personally, I wouldn't want to be in a bad situation, so seeing someone in a bad time of their life affects me in such a way that I feel like they need my help. Feelings of sympathy is something everyone should have at least to some degree. So appeal to pity is probably the most common.

Usefulness of the Second Assignment

It was definitely easier communicating for this assignment since my group worked well together. This did improve my ability to work in a team environment, which is helpful for my engineering major. I hope to continue to build on that. It's encouraging to know that I don't necessarily have to take an engineering related class to improve my skills related to my major.

Personally, I was not aware of what exactly ASPCA was until this assignment. After doing some research, it was clear on how much they've done and how much they mean to animals in need. What surprised me was the claims and fallacies that were incorporated into the organization's website. For example, I knew that the pictures of sad and neglected animals were displayed to make people feel sad, but I wasn't aware of was that it related to the Epstein's text. Now, I'm aware of the claims listed in the text and how to find them in places other than books.

General Claims and Diagrams

General claims are claims that argue something about all or part of a collection in a general way. These claims may or may not be true depending on the wording. Epstein describes the usage of "all", "some", "no", and "only". An example of a valid general claim is "All drivers must get their license to drive a car. Jeff has his license. So Jeff can drive a car." When using "all" in an argument, one must consider that it means "every single one, no exceptions" or sometimes "every single one, and at least one." Some means "at least one". It can also mean "at least one, but not all." In both cases, the meaning depends on the argument. "No" can mean "no any single one" or "not even one."

Diagrams are a helpful way of understanding these kinds of arguments These types of diagrams are similar to a Venn Diagram. However, like the claims, diagrams can be valid or invalid. Ways to check for validity include: a collection is represented by an enclosed area, and if one area is entirely within another, then everything in one group is also in the other. Additionally, if two areas do not overlap each other, then the two areas have nothing in common with each other.

Raising Objections and Refuting Arguments

Raising objections is basically trying to show that an argument is bad and why it is bad. While raising objections, another argument is made that counters the bad argument either by questioning the premise or premises or disproving the conclusion. We all experience this kind of arguing and counter-arguing everyday, whether we notice it or not. Recently, my girlfriend and I had debated where we were going to have lunch. She suggested pizza, but I countered by saying we had pizza last week and suggested a burger place. She counter-argued by saying we also had burgers last week. We did that back and forth until we finally decided to just eat at home. We each pointed out what was wrong with the other person's argument.

Refuting an argument is basically a method of counter-arguing. One can refute an argument either directly or indirectly. By disproving an argument directly, a person must either show that a premise is dubious, show that the argument is weak, or show that the conclusion is false. On the other hand, indirectly refuting an argument involves explaining how a false or unwanted conclusion is a result of the premises stated.

Compound Claims and Conditional Claims

Compound claims are single claims made up of multiple claims. A compound claim, regardless of how many claims it consists of, is viewed as a single claim. For instance, consider a child breaking a lamp by playing ball in the house. Both of his parents are angry at him, but are undecided on who would punish him. So, either the father will punish him, or the mother will. As you can see, regardless of which premise happens (punishment from father or punishment from mother), the child will be punished for his behavior.

As stated by Epstein, "a claim is conditional if it can be rewritten as an 'if...then..." claim that must have the same truth value. In other words, something will only happen if a previous action occurs before. For example, Lisa will only go on a date with Jim if he pays for everything. This is considered conditional because if Jim were not to pay for everything, then Lisa would not go on a date with him.

Online Advertising

I'm sure all of us have seen the freecreditreport.com commercials at some point. You know, the ones with the catchy songs about accessing your credit score. Well I personally tried to sign up for it the other day thinking that I would be able to check all three of my credit scores for no cost to me. What I did not know was that it was a free trial and that I would be charged $15 every month for access to my credit report. Unfortunately, I did not find that out until 2 months after I initially signed up for the trial. When I did try to cancel my subscription over the phone, two of the customer service people hung up on me. Eventually I did get it canceled, but I'm $30 poorer now because I did not read the fine print. This taught me to never accept any of these "free" ads without reading the fine print.

Repairing an Argument

Example Argument: Jerry and Terry used to be the same weight. Jerry now weighs more than Terry. Therefore Jerry must have gained weight.

Analysis: It is not valid to conclude that Jerry gained weight especially since Terry could have just lost weight resulting in Jerry weighing more. In other words, a weight gain by Jerry or a weight loss by Terry, are both possible reasons why Jerry weighs more than Terry. Not knowing the exact weights of the two gentlemen makes it hard to distinguish what really happened. Therefore an additional premise is needed. Including "Terry stayed the same weight as before" would make this a good argument because it validates the conclusion. It also eliminates the possibility that Terry could have lost weight. In order for  the conclusion of Jerry gaining weight to be true, all of the premises, including the state of Terry's weight, must be true.

Negotiate Effectively

Part of Chapter 4 in the Group Communication text discusses the technique of negotiating and how to do so effectively. Although it may seem like a simple topic, a lot of factors and conditions apply to negotiating. It has also become a regular habit that people, especially employees, do everyday. One of the major issues of negotiating that O'Hair and Wiemann talked about in the text was the misinterpretation of the importance of compromising. Even though some sacrifices are expected, one should not just expect and settle for just a compromise. Rather than that, if a person believes that he or she deserves a certain demand, then that person should continue to fight for it until they are persuaded to stop. O'Hair and Wiemann also do not recommend the the approach of asking for a lot in hope of settling for slightly less than that.

I found this information useful because everyone negotiates with others whether they realize it or not. In order to get what you want you need to negotiate for it, especially if that thing you're fighting for does not come easy. I also learned to seek alternate solutions if a compromise cannot be reached.

Content Fallacy

Bad Appeal to Common Belief (or practice)
If (almost) everyone else (in this group) believes it (or does it), then it's true (good to do).

This fallacy means that just because the majority of people in a group believe something is right, then it's probably true. The majority may be right about their argument, but their argument is not always true. Just because a lot of people think it's true, doesn't necessarily mean it is. Some people are afraid of saying the wrong thing or going against what other people think which is why they might side with the majority more often than not.

An example of this is when I was in elementary school. My teacher asked the class a question and everyone was supposed to raise their hands to what they thought the correct answer was. Unfortunately for me, I did not know the answer. My teacher then read off the choices. For one of them, a lot of my classmates raised their hands. I assumed that that had to be the right answer, so I raised my hand as well. It turned out that I and a lot of my other classmates were wrong. Not only did I feel stupid for going with what everyone thought, but the people that did get it right got a prize.

Complex Arguments for Analysis

Page 225 #2: I'm on my way to school. I left five minutes late (1). Traffic is heavy (2). Therefore, I'll be late for class (3). So I might as well stop and get breakfast.

Argument? Yes.

Conclusion: Since I'll be late for class due to heavy traffic and leaving late, I might as well stop and get breakfast.

Additional premises needed? If I left for school later than I should have, and if traffic is heavy, then I will be late for school.

Identify any subargument: 1 and 2 are independent of each other but both support 3.

Good argument? This is not a good argument because it's better to be late than to not show up at all. In the time it takes to stop for breakfast, the professor or instructor might have gone over something important like information for the next exam or a big assignment, or a pop quiz.

Valid Arguments vs. Strong Arguments

There is a slight difference between a valid argument and a strong argument. The premises in each type of argument are true. However, the truthfulness of the conclusion is where they differ. In a strong argument, the conclusion might not be true. Conversely, the conclusion is almost always true in a valid argument. Strong arguments often reveal or involve an opinion or a sense of bias by the person making the argument.

My examples:
Strong Argument - Team A defeated Team B. Team B defeated Team C. Therefore, Team A will be Team C.
      This is a strong argument because the conclusions may not be true. The premises, or the fact that Team A beat Team B, is true. However, just because Team C lost to Team B, does not necessarily mean that Team C will also lose to Team A. Although the conclusion may end up being true, it is not a guarantee that the result will be as stated.

Valid Argument - Dillon has the flu. Therefore, he has symptoms such as fever, aches, chills and fatigue.
      This is a valid argument because fever, aches, chill and fatigue are all symptoms of the flu. If the symptoms were different, then the diagnosis would probably be different as well.

Tests for Arguments

Example: A person born on or in between September 24 through October 23 is a Libra. Katie was born on October 11th. Therefore, Katie is a Libra.

Tests for Good Arguments:
1) The premises are plausible.
     Libras are in fact born in between that time period. I personally do not know why that is, but it is accepted by those who believe in astrology. Whether you follow horoscopes or not is up to you. No other sign is associated with those dates which justifies the premises.
2) The premises are more plausible than the conclusion.
    The premises are concrete and generally accepted by people worldwide. Katie's birthday is specific to her, and her only, which also means her sign is situational to her personal life. The conclusion depends on when Katie was born. The premises cannot change. Therefore, the conclusion is not as plausible as the premises.
3) The argument is valid or strong.
     Katie's birthday is October 11th. According to the astrology, she is a Libra. No counter argument can exist that she is a different sign which defeats any purpose of a debate against the argument. Although astrology itself is debatable, Katie's sign is not.

Group Roles in Small Groups

Chapter 2 in The Essential Guide to Group Communication talks about participating in small groups and the etiquette and demeanor associated with those groups. Much like a basketball team (or any team for that matter), these groups must work together, almost as one, in order to successfully complete a task. Whether they are publicly distinguished or not, effective groups utilize certain roles in order for each person to work well with one another. These roles are separated into two different types of roles: task roles and personal roles.

Task roles focus solely on accomplishing goals whereas personal roles deal with the groups chemistry and relationships.

Task roles are very much similar to that of roles of a basketball team. For example, the administrator, or coach from a basketball perspective, keeps track of everyone and makes sure things get done. The initiator in a group is much like a point guard in basketball as they facilitate things to happen. They are also able to come up with different solutions to different problems. Small group roles also include an elaborator, an information giver, and an information seeker.

Personal roles are like the experienced veterans on a championship caliber team. They might not be able to contribute a whole lot in terms of their production, but their presence makes the whole group more cohesive by doing things such as easing any tension in the group. That is the task of the harmonizer.  The other roles are gatekeeper and sensor.

Vague Sentences

For those who have work at a retail store, have you ever had those customers that don't know what they're looking for and expect you to be able to find it for them? That seems to happen to me every week. Some customers would try to explain a certain item but not be able to give me enough information for me to help them. For example, this lady asks me to find a toy for her child's birthday. I am obligated to ask her how old and what gender her child is. She tells me that her daughter is turning five and likes dolls. Unfortunately, she does not know what kind of doll she interested in. So I ask her, "Does she like Barbie dolls? Or does she like any of the Disney Princesses?" Her response was, "I'm not sure. I just know she likes dolls." I thought to myself, "That does not help me at all." Without any other detail, I probably spent a good half hour trying to find something to appease her. In the end, after looking through numerous aisles of girls merchandise, she ended up buying one Barbie that I showed her in the beginning. Because of her vague description, I feel like I wasted time looking for something that was in front of us.

Subjective vs. Objective

Subjective claims are claims that are based on opinions rather than facts. These types of claims are omitted either verbally or in written form with a sense of personal bias depending on the topic. An example of subjectivity is the seemingly arrogant sports fan also known as my cousin. When it comes to sports, he's the type of person who will talk up his own favorite sports teams and criticize other teams he does not like. He says things like "My team is the best." or "My team is better than yours" without actually giving much evidence to back his claim up. Now I understand that he can support any team he wants to which I do not have a problem with. The problem is the fact that his subjective way of thinking irks people including myself.

Unlike subjective claims, objective claims are based mainly off of facts and are not as biased. Although objective claims may not be true all the time, evidence exists to at least argue to be proven true. An example of an objective claim is happened a couple of weeks ago at the toy store where I work. A customer approached me about an item and tried to explain the price was not correct. Personally, I knew the retail price of the item and respectfully responded back to him about why the price was what it was. I did agree, however, that the item was overpriced. This was an objective claim by myself because, even though I sort of agreed with the considerably subjective customer, the price of the item was correctly priced.

Intro Post

My name is Justin Ryan Bataclan and I am a junior at SJSU. I was born on June 29th, 1990 in Castro Valley but lived my whole life in Hayward.

Prior to going to SJSU, I was planning on pursuing a degree in accounting or another business related major. However, I later decided during my freshmen year to pursue a degree in Electrical Engineering since I found that kind of technology interesting