POST 3

One concept I really liked learning about during the semester was learning about the appeal to emotion. I wish this section was a little bit longer than a paragraph like the book has it. I think I’m really interested in this topic because I’m a psyc minor and I watch a lot of Law and Order: SVU. (Great show by the way). I think it is really amazing how you can convince people of your stance by tapping into their emotions. I think this is the main reason why people are successful life. A lot of people are rich because I think basically, they know how to manipulate people whether it be buying shares in their stocks or being one of the investors in the company. It is just really amazing how you can sway one person’s emotions by saying something that they can relate to or touches them in a certain way.

POST 2

What I’ve learned in this class over the semester is to not procrastinate. But I think that applies to all my classes. Probably my life too. (sigh). Although we were given an ample amount of time to do our posts on our blogs, I would always lost track of time because I always thought I had a lot of it. Next thing I knew, I was Friday night and I was stuck looking at the clock every minute so I could post in those 12 hour intervals. So, after this, hopefully I have learned my lesson to not procrastinate. I also learned how to work with a group better. I have always done my work on my own just because it was a lot easier because I did not have to depend on anyone else besides myself. I think working with a group taught me how to communicate better with people.

POST 1

What I liked about this class the most was that it was online and it was on my own pace. I know I had due dates in this class but I felt like it was really more relaxed than other classes and less demanding. I liked how the blogs were very vague and weren’t so specific so it was fairly easy to write about anything.

What I didn’t like about the class was the group essays. Sometimes it was really difficult to meet with my group and I’m not used to working in groups because I usually do things on my own. It gives me a sort of paranoia because I’m always worried if something goes wrong with my group mates. It’s really hard to organize myself, yet alone four other people. 

I guess this could be improved by not having group work? Other than that, I don’t really have a problem with the class. 

WEEK 12, POST 1

Reasoning by analogy is when someone compares the argument in question to a similar argument. An example of this would be, the glee club is allowed to sell candy for fundraising so the christian club should be allowed to sell candy too. 

Sign reasoning claims that two or more things are so closely related that the presence or absence of one indicates the presence or absence of the other. When there is thunder, there is lightning. Although lightning can exist without any thunder.

Casual reasoning is when one even is the cause of the even after. An example would be if you take out the pan without oven mitts, you will burn yourself. The act of you not using mitts causes your burn.

Reasoning by criteria is defining by a certain guideline, if you will, instead of just getting straight to the point. An example is, being successful and getting a good job requires you to do certain things versus saying, you need to go to school in order to be successful. 

Reasoning by example is using example in an argument. You should tint your windows, all my friends tint their windows no one can look into their car.

Inductive reasoning is making a judgement based on a previous observation but the truth of the premise does not guarantee the truth of conclusion. The paper boy delivers the paper at 5AM. He will deliver the paper at 5AM tomorrow.

Deductive reasoning is true only when the conclusion and premise is true. All electrical equipment requires electricity. My lamp is electric. My lamp requires electricity. 

WEEK 11, POST 3

Undiscussed Concept

An interesting concept I read about was appeal to pity. After reading the short description, this concept is pretty sneaky and underhanded. It puts your audience in a position where they feel awkward or bad if they do not comply or agree with the premise. The appeal to pity is also manipulative like the appeal to fear. If you let your emotions get the best of you and are very gullible, then you are the best candidate for this appeal. Appeal to pity is great to use when you know your audience can easily relate to the issue. For example, if someone was giving a speech about domestic violence to a group of women who have experienced domestic violence, then they would be easily swayed if the arguer said that everyone should know self-defense to protect themselves. Along with the speech, the arguer showed pictures of battered women with black eyes and x-rays of dislocated joints and broken body parts. These instruments aid into the appeal to pity because the women relate and feel the same exact pain they see in the pictures. Assume in a hypothetical situation, these women were defenseless and did not know how to fight. After going through their traumatizing experience, they would want to know self-defense to have a piece of mind. 

WEEK 11, POST 2

http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist34/advertisements/fear%20ads/pages/flonase_jpg.htm

The advertisement attached is about allergy medication. At the top of the ad, there are several pictures of a woman showing various allergy symptoms. The woman looks very discomforted and the fact that the pictures are in a grayscale make it more dramatic. There are words such as “nasal congestion, itchy nose, and sneezing” to reiterate the message conveyed in the pictures. 

“When you’ve had it with multi-symptoms nasal allergies, all it takes is Flonase for multi-symptom relief” is underneath the pictures. Directly underneath is the same woman, in color, looking very happy and allergy free. The unstated argument is that if you take Flonase, you will no longer have allergies making you a happier rather than when you were having allergies. If you don’t take the medication, you will look like her at the top of the advertisement. This is a good argument that appeals to your emotions and more specifically, fear. 

WEEK 11, POST 1

In chapter 10, Too Much Emotional the idea of appeal to emotion is well, pretty self explanatory. It appeals to.. you know.. your emotions. I feel like the appeal to emotion is one of the strongest appeals you can use in an arguments. Everyone has an opinion on everything whether it is good or bad or maybe with no opinion at all. 

The appeal to fear strikes me the most. It was used a lot growing up in a strict family.
“You should finish your food before you get the slipper!” (If you haven’t figured it out already, I’m Filipino. And don’t worry, I turned out fine. haha) My dad’s argument heavily persuaded me to finish my food because if I didn’t, I would be punished. Appeal to fear isn’t really a good way to persuade your audience though. You would be able to persuade them but you don’t know what the repercussions are. Your audience might not like your or trust you anymore. 

WEEK 9, POST 3

In general,  I think understanding the concept of deciding whether or not an argument was good or not. I think part of the reason I do not understand the concept is that there is so much “repetition”. False premise, false conclusion. False premise, true conclusion. Everything just starts to look the same, if you ask me. Then there’s plausibility of the claim which basically if the claim is believable or not. If someone came up to you and told you that the sky is yellow, the you would come to the conclusion that the premise presented is not plausible and then false. The there is the conclusion follows from the premise. There has to be a connection between the two. You cannot just say that Nancy is a girl. She is a bitch. There is no real connection. If you say Nancy girl. She says a lot of mean things about people. She is a bitch. Then there is a connection between the premises and the conclusion. 

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html

WEEK 9, POST 2

I think Chapter 8 that had to deal with general claims in general was quite confusing. It made sense when I read other people’s blogs about valid and invalid forms it makes sense, but when I try to explain it, it is really hard to. It’s really hard to explain things in words sometimes and they are better explained visually, like diagrams. 

General claims and their contradictions are very common. Words such as all, always, a lot, most, never are used to make your claim stronger when it really isn’t. An example of this would be I say that I’m always tired. Which really isn’t true because I’m not always tired. 

Vague generalities are similar to general claims. They talk about all or part of a collection without specifying a precise number (Epstein 171). An example would be me saying all guys are douchebags. This argument is invalid because all guys aren’t douchebags. 

WEEK 9, POST 1

For our second paper, Critical Thinking and Social Organizations was a bit more difficult than the first. Working on the paper in general as a group, made my group realize that we couldn’t just talk online like we did last time. It was really hard to communicate and it was difficult to discuss in-depth topics via email. As a group, we decided that meeting in person would be better so we could get feedback from each other right away. That’s kind of why I feel like we have group communications book. But getting into the assignment part, it really made us think about what we learned in the book. Instead of regurgitating information, we had to apply the concepts and find the answers on the website instead of the bolded words in the book. I liked the the assignment asked what advertising techniques used to promote the chosen organization. 

WEEK 7, POST 3

The two things that I have learned in Epstein’s chapter 7 is the two different ways to refute and argument. One way is to refute directly and the other is to refute indirectly. 

Refuting directly is to object to what has been said. 

There are three ways:

• show that as least one of the premises is dubious or doubtful
• show that the argument isn’t valid or strong
• show that the conclusion is false (Epstein, 149)

Example:

We should buy 3 gallons of Hennessy for our vacation.

(objection) That’s a lot, we should buy 2.

(answer) We’re going to drink more than 2 gallons.

(objection) We are on a budget.

(answer) When we finish the 2 gallons, we are going to end up buying more at an expensive liquor store rather than wholesale. 

(answer) It will be cheaper to buy the 3 now rather than later. 

In this case, the objections were trying to make my argument of buying 3 gallons of Hennessy less valid and less strong. 

Refuting indirectly is used when you cannot exactly say any one premise is false or dubious (Epstein 149).

Example:

Conclusion: I want to start dieting healthy, I just won’t eat.

Indirect refute: You say you want to diet healthy by not eating. Not eating will result in you losing weight. Not eating causes a lot of problems. You are hungry all the time, you don’t have a lot of energy, you could possibly pass out, and maybe even die. The body uses food as energy to do its everyday tasks such as breathing and getting up out of bed. If the body has no energy, then it will start to shut down. So, not eating does not mean your are dieting healthy. 

WEEK 7, POST 2

In chapter 6, Epstein discusses conditionals. (Another thing I learned in philosophy, how convenient!)

“A claim is conditional if it can be rewritten as an ‘if....then...’ claim that must have the same truth-value. ‘If A then B’, the claim A is the antecedent and the claim B is the consequent” (Epstein, 121).

I’m really bad at remember things so the way I formed the relationship between “If A and B” and antecedent and consequent is that the letter A comes before the letter B. So, A = antecedent and B = consequent. And it also helps that antecedent starts with the letter A. 

Having that said, If you raise your voice with me, I will get mad. If you raise your voice with me is the antecedent. I will get mad is the consequent. Also, think of consequent as consequence, like the end result. Example: If you don’t drink water for a long period of time, you will get dehydrated. Getting dehydrated is the consequence of not drinking water. 

WEEK 7, POST 1

In Chapter 6 of Esptein’s book, the different contradictions of claims were very interesting. It reminded me of philosophy class I took a few semesters back. 

There are 3 different types of contradictions of claims: contradictory of a claim, contradictory of an or claim, and contradictory of an and claim. To make it look easier: claim, or claim, and claim. 

The contradictory of a claim is basically the opposite of what the claim is saying. 

For example:

Claim: Nicole’s hair is long.

Contradictory: Nicole’s hair isn’t long. 

This one is pretty easy to understand. You just say the opposite: The sky is blue. The sky is not blue. Kind of like an annoying little sibling that contradicts everything you say. 

The contradictory of an or claim is “A or B has contradictory not A and not B” (Esptein 115). 

Example:

Claim: Nicole will either run over Matt or Matt will run over Nicole.

Contradictory: Nicole won’t run over Matt, and Matt won’t run over Nicole. 

Basically, with or claims, you have to put “and” in the contradictory. 

The contradictory of an and claim is “A and B has contradictory not A or not B” (Epstein, 115).

Example:

Claim: Jack can’t drink milk, but Nicole can.

Contradictory: Jack can’t drink milk, or Nicole can drink milk. 

I’m still a little confused on the third one, it doesn’t really make sense to me since the word format is very new to me. 

WEEK 6, POST 2

"Life's too short for the wrong job." from jobsintown.com

As you can see, this advertisement is obviously from a company that offers job searching services. The premise is unstated but I believe it would be something of this context: Using our company will help you find the right job for you. Or maybe the quote in the add is the premise? This picture shows a woman inside the washing machine as a man is doing his laundry. The space is cramped, she's sweating profusely and by the looks of it, the job that she has doesn't pay well. It also looks like she doesn't enjoy her job, which is a common problem and a lot of people really want to find job that pay well, but they also enjoy doing.

Maybe the piece of advertisement that I used was not up to criteria but I'm having trouble trying to figure out what the premise is. Maybe the premise could be "Life's too short for the wrong job"? As for the criteria for accepting or rejecting claims, personal experience can greatly persuade readers. Everyone has a job, everyone needs a job to survive in this world. (Ha, I think I just made my own conclusion and premise without even knowing it. Ok random sorry.) I think this subject is really easy to accept as claim from people who have had jobs. A lot of the people I know who are making a good amount of money have told me about the low paying jobs that they have had to deal with and they say it is not worth it.

WEEK 6, POST 1- Repairing Arguments

Example: Marijuana should be legalized. It makes you feel good.

Analysis: The conclusion is that marijuana should be legalized. The premise that this argument stands on is that marijuana makes you feel good. The premise stated is missing a lot. It is obvious that marijuana is smoked or eaten but it is not stated so readers can assume that looking at it would make them feel good. Or playing catch with it. Or letting it sit in your closet. What is also missing from is argument is what benefits there is to legalizing it besides making you feel good. The premise is too broad. If you add the premise; “Smoking marijuana helps people cope with their illnesses such as cancer and insomnia”, then the argument becomes a little stronger. Although the argument is a little stronger than before, the premises and conclusion is not strong “glued” together. There are still missing pieces to the argument. 

WEEK 4, POST 3

I was really interested in “So It’s Bad, So What?”. I found it very amusing, actually. The concept of this section focuses on pointing out what is wrong with your argument and making you feel bad, but to improve it. You find out what is wrong with the argument and see if you can make it better. I really like the attitude of this concept. I have a really hard time thinking of good arguments and I always have to go back and fix them. Reading this did not make me feel so bad. So what if my arguments do not have a strong enough premise, I can fix them. When dealing with a bad argument, you should not make the person who wrote it feel bad, you should just help them understand what they did wrong or how they can improve and you can learn something in the process as well.

WEEK 4, POST 2

The appeal to emotion is a fallacy that shows interest to your emotions. It manipulates your emotions to make you think a certain way. I see a lot of appeals to emotions in sales pitches, especially when it comes to ones physical image or self-confidence. An example of an appeal to emotion to women would be: You should try this new lemon diet. You drop pounds instantly and will feel great about yourself and be more confident. In this sales pitch, it makes you feel like if you use this product, you will miraculously be more confident. There is incentive to buy the product because you want to lose weight because socially, a thin and fit woman is praised in this society compared to a large woman. Television commercials are an easy way to target an audience with an appeal to emotion because not only can you hear the appeal, you can see it as well. So for the lemon diet ad, there is a picture of a woman who was overweight and did not look happy and right next to it is an after picture of the same woman who has lost weight and looks happy. This image appeals to their emotion of losing weight and the ad has now manipulated the audience to buying the product.

WEEK 4, POST 1

I’m on my way to school. (1) I left five minutes late. (2) Traffic is heavy. (3) Therefore, I’ll be late for class. (4) So I might as well stop and get breakfast. (5)

Argument: Yes

Conclusion: So I might as well stop and get breakfast.

Additional premises needed: If you leave five minutes late when there is traffic, you’re going to be late and might as well and get breakfast.

Identify any sub argument: 2, 3, 4 are independent and support the conclusion, 5.

Good Argument: I think this is a reasonable argument. I don’t think it’s a strong argument, but it’s reasonable.

This exercise took me a while to do, actually. I had to read the sentences over and over again to make sense of the whole thing. “I’m on my way to school”, didn’t support the conclusion. This exercise was really useful. It was useful because it helps you pick out what premises do not support your conclusion. When you are trying to support your main point with premises, but it’s easy to rebuttal the premise like, “Cats smell bad.” In the book, the rebuttal can be “So?”. This exercise taught me how to make my premises stronger and better support my conclusion. There needs to be a nice flow of premises, not just random ones put together. I’m still confused about “additional premises”. I don’t really know what that means or what I’m supposed to do with it. I’ve looked at the examples and it’s still a little confusing to me. 

Week 3, Post 3

There are three tests for an argument to be good: the premises must be plausible, the premises are more plausible than the conclusion, and the argument is valid or strong (42). Although there are three tests to find out if an argument is good, they are all independent of one another. An example of a valid argument would be: Mr. Jones is a bus driver. All bus drivers are men. Mr. Jones is a man. This is valid because the premise and conclusion are both true. An example of a premise being more plausible than the conclusion would be: Stephanie is a really nice person. Her parents must be really nice. Both the premise and conclusion are true but the premise of Stephanie being a nice person does not reflect her parents being nice people. Therefore, the premise is more plausible than the conclusion. The simplest test in testing for a good argument is having a plausible premise, meaning your premise has to be believable. The sky is blue. So, the sky is not red. The premise of the sky being blue is true. 

Week 3, Post 2

A concept that I believe to be useful was A Good Reason to Believe. It talks about what makes an argument good. I liked the point that you can still make a good argument even though you cannot convince a person. The example in the book says your friend can be drunk while you have good argument. So a good argument is not based on if you convince a person, it just depends on the argument itself. A bad argument would be a false premise accompanied with a false conclusion (37). An example of a bad argument would be: Only Tylenol makes ibuprofen. Ibuprofen is only made by Tylenol. A false premise accompanied with a true conclusion is an example of a bad argument as well; Only Tylenol makes ibuprofen. Ibuprofen is a medicine. You cannot make a good argument if the premise is false regardless if the conclusion is true or not. 

WEEK 3: Strong vs. Valid Arguments

Strong and valid arguments are very similar but different at the same time. Strong and valid arguments both same the same conclusion but a strong argument has a true premise or proposition.  A valid argument states facts. An example of a valid argument would be: Kayla only buys blue hair ties. Therefore, Kayla likes blue hair ties. An example of a strong argument would be: Every time I see Eric, he is always wearing Jordans. He doesn’t wear anything besides Jordans. Therefore, the only shoes that Eric likes to wear are Jordans. Both a valid and strong argument be the same argument, the only difference is how the speakers says it. They might say “maybe” or “really” which would reflect if they think the argument is valid or strong. Both arguments are true, they are just said differently.  A valid or strong argument does not depend on whether the premises are true, whether we know the premises are true, and whether the person making the argument thinks the argument is valid or strong (48). 

COMM 41- INTRO POST

Hi. My name is Nicole. This is my third year at SJSU.