Whaaaaaaaaaaattt?! Okaaayyy?! Yeaaaaaaahhhhh?!

I have a hard time with Chapter 11. Although I think I know what a fallacy is, the amount of different types of structural fallacies and content fallacies is really confusing to me. The way structural fallacies were presented in the book was very confusing. The list with all the letters did not make that much sense to me. Everything was so similar although they are supposed to show how things are different. Maybe if there were examples of each it could possible help. The letters used in the section did not help me at all. If there was one thing we can discuss a little further then it would be this section. The different types of content fallacies were a little easier to understand but the sheer number of different types is what makes it hard for me. It is more of trying to memorize it that having a problem understanding it. Structural fallacies however are just plain confusing to me.

Lesson Learned.

I have learned a lot throughout the semester. I am the type of guy that enjoys a playful argument so learning about how to make successful arguments was something I am really going to put into use. What is equally helpful is learning how to analyze arguments so that I am better at making counter arguments. Another thing that I am going to take from this class is what I learned about group communication. Group communication is key when it comes to having a successful career so I am glad that this class had a section on it. Lastly, I learned how to be more organized. Having needed to post online for this class was a little inconvenient for me. I am always bust with school and work and I am hardly on the computer. I needed to figure out a system to make it work and was glad I was able to do so.

1-800 Generalization Now

Once concept that I found useful and interesting from Chapter 14 was the first section about generalizing. This section provided an excellent platform for what the whole chapter was about. This section was one of the easier one to grasp this semester. The examples used were easy to follow and provided great support to the rest of the material. This section has made me realize how much we do generalize each day. Not only that, I never realized how much people generalize when it comes to statistics. It kind of ties in with the previous chapter about misleading numbers and claims. Distinguishing between the population and sample was a little hard at first but with the examples as well as the exercises for this particular section help me really understand it. I am now able to recognize whether a generalization is good or bad. I really enjoyed this section of the chapter.

Cause:Effect, Smoking:Cancer

When I got to the section titled “Cause and Effect in Population,” I became a lot more interested. What caught my eye was the opening line which was “When we say ‘Smoking causes lung cancer,’ what do we mean?” (Epstein 320). Smoking and cancer is always an interesting subject for me to read. This section was also one of the easier ones to grasp in this chapter. I really liked the way it was organized specially with the three different experiments. The examples that followed were also very good. I liked how it continued to talk about smoking and also the second example was about drinking while pregnant. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a serious issue that not many people are aware of so seeing it as an example made it more interesting to me. Also because I was interested about what I was reading about, I believe it played a reason into why I was able to grasp the idea so easy. Great section of the chapter.

On a Mission

When I first visited the website, I was a little shocked at all the info I had to go through. As I clicked away at each link I soon realized that its contents was more than just what chapter fifteen of Epstein offered. The Mission Critical website had a lot of good info. It served as a review for me. The exercises were a plus but I feel like it was a little rough around the edges. The exercises part was kind of confusing because if you keep scrolling down it moves on to different questions and I got kind of lost. But other than that part I thought it was a very good summary of what we have been learning throughout the semester. I really liked the way it was organized in an outline form. Each subject even had its own exercise, which was a plus. I will definitely use this website again to study for the final.

So easy a caveman can do it.

At first it was fairly easy to understand the idea of casual claims. The idea of the accident between the illegally parked truck, the bicycle, and the two cars that followed was fairly easy to grasp. However, as I read more and more, it became a little confusing. What was really useful was the exercise it provided after reading through the whole thing. Although I got a little lost trying to navigate the exercise portion of the website, the content about the potato salad really proved useful in helping me learn the concept. I was able to answer all of the questions right the first time around. However I decided to purposely click some wrong answers to see what would happen. Surprisingly, the process of it explaining why an answer was wrong provided me with some extra knowledge on the subject. It helped me understand the material even more. Overall the website worked well in complementing what the book also offered.

Smoke and Mirrors

For this exercise I chose number 3 which asked to find an advertisement that uses an appeal to fear. The advertisement that I found is a picture of a cemetery that has rows of crosses to show where people are buried. However there is an area where there are no crosses which has the phrase “no smoking area.” This is a clever ad that suggests that smoking kills. It strikes the fear in people to stop smoking because if you do, you will die. I believe it is a good argument because it is well known that smoking causes all kinds of health issues, which can ultimately lead to death. What I like about this ad is that it is not as obvious as many other anti-tobacco ads. It does not just plainly state that smoking kills. It makes you think about what it is trying to say which I believe makes it more effective.

Emotional Apeal

It is nearly impossible for a person to not let emotions play a role in reasoning. According to Epstein, “an appeal to emotion is an argument is just a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way” (191). It is widely used in ads by different types of organizations. Many use it to their advantage to get people to make donations. In this type it is called appealing to pity. The ads make you feel sorry for them thus persuading you to their position. What strikes me the most is when people or organizations use the appeal to fear. Government officials often use it to get votes. Instead of campaigning on what they are good at, they usually attack other opposing candidates to strike fear in voters showing them what could happen if that person wins the election. It is also used to strike fear in people to prevent them from doing things like smoking and drunk driving. I believe this is the best way to use the appeal to fear.

Are you Implying that I Inferred?

A concept I found interesting was the Inferring and Implying section in chapter 5 of the Epstein book. Infer and imply can be easily be mistaken to be synonymous. This section helped me greatly understand and distinguish the difference between the two. According the Epstein, “When someone leaves a conclusion unsaid, he or she is implying the conclusion. When you decide that an unstated claim is the conclusion, you are inferring that claim. We can also say someone is implying a claim if in context it’s clear he or she believes the claim. In that case we infer that the person believes the claim.” There are probably countless times when I have switched the two and used them improperly. I also liked how the section describes how implying and inferring can be tricky and lead you to hot water. Sometimes claims or conclusions just seem too obvious that we infer or imply although we should not.

Spray and Pray

The piece of advertisement that I found on the internet is for axe body spray (pictured above, click for full view). The picture contains a woman who is only wearing red lingerie. She is portrayed to what seems like a primitive woman in the wild in modern sexy lingerie. Next to her in big writing is the phrase "SPRAY MORE GET MORE, THE AXE EFFECT." What the ad is essentially is claiming is that getting women is like hunting. With the help of axe body spray, the more you spray the more women you will get. I personally reject this claim. Women are not hunted. Although most women prefer a guy that smells nice, it a lone wont decide whether or not a woman is attracted to a man. The "spray more get more" claim is false. We can not trust their company on this claim and their is no respectable authority figure that supports this claim. My personal experiences as well as what I have observe with friends who use axe body spray, provide no evidence to support this claim. However, because this ad is directed towards young boys that are full of hormones, the ad somewhat is successful at selling the product. They are at that age where they pray that anything will help them get a girl.

Weezy F Baby the F is for Fix-it

According to Epstein, repairing arguments must meet three guidelines
1. The argument becomes stronger or valid.
2. The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.
3. The premise is more plausible than the conclusion.

Here is an example of an argument that needs to be repaired.

Lil' Wayne is a gangster. So he will either end up in prison or be shot to death.

Analysis
The obvious add will be "All gangsters either end up in prison or be shot to death," but we can not do that because it will make the argument invalid. It is false because not all gangsters end up in prison or get shot to death. If we change it a little bit and say "Almost all gangsters either end up in prison or be shot to death," then it will make the argument good. It links the premise to the conclusion and satisfies the three guidelines to repairing an argument.

Shifting Gears

I chose one from Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion called Shifting the burden of proof. Basically, when one is in an argument, it is usually easier to ask the other person to disprove the claim rather than proving it themselves. If it cannot be disproved so it becomes mistakenly believed for a valid argument without even having the need to prove it yourself.

An example is the debate on the existence of God. One side claims that there is no way to disprove that God exist therefore God exists. However the same argument can be made for the other side. There is no way to disprove that God does not exists therefore God does not exist. Instead of proving a certain side, the one making the claim simply just asks the other side to disprove them and because it is impossible to do so, it makes their claim seem valid although it’s a fallacy.

Gone in 60 seconds.

My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.(1) People do not like living next door to such a mess.(2) He never drives any of them.(3) They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. (4)It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values. (5)

Argument: Yes

Conclusion: My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.

Additional premises needed: something like 1 because 2,3,4,5.

Identify any subargument: 2,3,4,5 are independent and support 1.

Good argument: The premises are plausible so this is a good argument.

I actually did all 5 of the exercises and found them very helpful. It made me analyze each sentence on a deeper level. I had a little trouble understanding what was meant by "Additional premises needed?" because of how they were answered on the example. If anyone would like to enlighten me, please feel free to comment.

Strong vs Valid

An argument is strong if it is possible for its premises to be true and the conclusion to be false even though it is extremely unlikely. A valid argument means there is no possible way for the premises to true and the conclusion to be false at the same time.

An example of a valid argument is as follows: Hooters has happy hour in which everything is half off everyday from 10 p.m. to 12 a.m. Therefore, if I go there at 11 p.m., I will receive a discount on whatever I order. This is a valid argument because there is no way for the conclusion to be false while the premises are true.

An example of a strong argument is as follows: Whenever my friends or I go to Hooters, a female serves us. Therefore, all of Hooters’ servers are females. This is a strong argument because the premises is true but the conclusion can be false.

Mic Test. 1-2-3.

In order for an argument to be good, it must pass three tests. Epstein states the three tests as follows:

1. The premises are plausible.
2. The premises are more plausible than the conclusion
3. The argument is valid or strong.

If an argument fails one or more of these tests, it is considered a bad or weak argument.


Example: Wendell has at least one alcoholic beverage a day. Alcoholics drink everyday. So Wendell is an alcoholic.

Analysis: The premises are plausible but the argument is weak. What exactly qualifies a person to be an alcoholic? A person may have to drink 3 or more alcoholic beverages to be considered an alcoholic. Although Wendell drinks everyday, there is no way of telling whether or not he drinks more than one alcoholic beverage a day. The premises can be true but the conclusion is false which makes this a weak non-valid argument.

Vague-arang!!!!!

Vague statements are all over advertisements. Examples I always see are on cereal boxes. As a marketing tool most cereal boxes today have something along the lines of “50% less fat.” When a consumer who is concerned with their health sees this, right away it makes them more inclined to buy that particular cereal. However, if you stop and think about it, the sentence is very vague. What does it mean by 50% less fat. Does it mean 50% less than their old cereal? 50% less than the average cereal? It can be misleading because even if its 50% less it all depends on how much fat there was to begin with. What if whatever they were comparing it to had originally 2 pounds of fat. A cereal that contains 50% of that still contains 1 pound of fat. If the consumer knew that he or she would not buy it. However, because its vague consumers don’t stop to think about it and are just drawn to the 50% less fat claim.

Subjective and Objective Claims

Distinguishing between subjective and objective claims is something many people overlook when having a conversation. A subjective claim is one that depends on other factors while an objective claim does not.

An example of a subjective claim I experienced a few days ago when a friend of mine claimed that skiing is more fun than snowboarding. Although I love to snowboard and wanted to disagree with her, I have never gone skiing so I would not know if her claim was true. What makes this claim subjective is that it may be true to some people and false for others. It all depends on how they feel.

An example of an objective claim is when a professor explains that an A is anything above 90%. No matter what any student believes, an A will always be 90% and above. This claim will always be true. It does not depend on anything.

Bangaranngggg!!

Hello everyone. I am taking this class to try out online dating. Hopefully the love of my life is one of these bloggers. To make sure I do not get any stalkers, I will introduce myself as Rufio. Bangarannnnggg!! All kidding aside, I am a Bio-Sci major with an emphasis in systems-phys. I love to laugh and I'm always trying to have fun. This is my first online class and the last class I need to take for my lower GE. I hope I don't get points deducted for the first part of my post. If I do, oh well. Hakuna Matata!

-Rufio