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).