W6: D1 Repairing Arguments

The Principle of Rational Discussion is when we assume that the person who’s argument we are reading:  
1.  Knows about the subject under discussion.
2.  Is able and willing to reason well.
3.  Is not lying.

To repair a faulty argument we can add a premise or conclusion that satisfies all of the following:
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.

If the argument is then valid or strong, we may remove a premise if doing so does not make the argument worse.

My example of an argument that needs repair:

Frank’s room is black.  Frank paints his room red.

Analysis:  There is something missing from this argument, an unstated premise that would help us to understand the connection between the premise and the conclusion.  We don’t know why Frank painted his room red out of all the colors of the rainbow and we don’t understand why it is significant.  If we were to add “Frank’s favorite color is red”, it would make the argument good.  This statement satisfies the guide to repairing arguments and is true.  Now the argument is much more understandable. 

W4: D3 Structural Fallacies

In Chapter 11, Epstein discusses structural fallacies.  I found this concept to be very interesting.  Structural fallacies are arguments that are bad because of their form, regardless of its content.  Structural fallacies display that the person is quite confused and is not reasoning very well.    An example of a structural fallacy would be if someone was to say, “All dogs shed.  Bill sheds.  Therefore, Bill is a dog”.  This is a structural fallacy because the argument is weak and  just not logical.  Just because Bill sheds, does not mean we can automatically assume that he is a dog.  The correct way to present this argument would be to say, “All dogs shed. Bill is a dog.  Therefore, Bill sheds”.  This argument is logical and shows a direct way of reasoning.   I think structural fallacies are silly because they show that the person clearly does not understand what they are talking about. 

W4: D2 Content Fallacies

Bad appeal to authority

The bad appeal to authority is a fallacy that claims that whatever an authority figure says about anything is most likely to be true.  This fallacy exists because people tend to trust authority figures, however not everything they say is actually true.  For example, my mother has always told me that pulling out my white hairs from my head will cause me to have more and more.  I never questioned this because my mother has always told me that she is always right.  However, I have recently learned that it is actually not a scientific fact that pulling out white hairs will lead you to have more.  Bad appeal to authority is a fallacy because the authority is not always right.  It is important for people to respect their authority, but it is also good for people to come up with their own opinions and beliefs.

W4: D1 Complex Arguments for Analysis

Exercise #2:
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 this is an argument.
Conclusion: I'm late for class, so I might as well stop for breakfast.
Additional premises needed? I would elaborate more by adding a sentence before sentence five to explain why being late to class after eating breakfast is just the same as going straight to class already late.
Identify any subargument: Sentences 1,2, and 3 are subarguments, Sentence 4 is the result of the three, and Sentence 5 is the conclusion.
Good argument?  This is a good argument because the premise is clear and it validates the conclusion. 

I found this exercise to be useful because I had to break down the argument.  After breaking it down, I could clearly identify the essentials that every good argument should have.  Then I was able to check the validity and effectiveness of the argument.  This exercise definitely helped me understand how to analyze an argument better.

W3: D3 Leaders

I found the different types of leadership to be very interesting.  A leader is there to control the group by making decisions and has the most influence over the group members.   The first type of leadership is authoritarian leadership.  This leader makes all the decisions without consulting anyone else.  The second type of leadership is consultative leadership.   This leader will consult with the group members and figure out what the group wants before making their final decision.  The third type of leadership is participation leadership.  This leader will work together with the group members to make decisions.  The fourth type of leadership is laissez-faire.  This leader does not take initiative and simply waits for the group to figure things out.   I think the most effective form of leadership would be participative leadership.  Participative leadership allows for everyone to have and share their opinions, this way the goal is more group oriented rather than just focused on one person’s opinion. 

W3: D2 Strong vs. Valid Arguments

An argument is considered to be a strong argument if it is possible but unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false at the same time.  An argument is considered to be a valid argument if there is absolutely no way for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false at the same time.

An example of a strong argument is…

Every frozen yogurt place that I or anyone I know have been to, has the flavor green tea.  Therefore, all frozen yogurt places must have the flavor green tea.

This is a strong argument because the premise is true.  However, it is not a known fact that all frozen yogurt places have the flavor green tea because we have not been to every single one. 

An example of a valid argument is…

In order to enter and park in the parking lot, a person needs to have a parking permit.  Therefore, whoever is parked in the parking lot has a parking permit.

This is considered a valid argument because it is simply impossible for someone to park in the parking lot without a parking permit. 

W3: D1 Good Arguments

According to Epstein there are three requirements that an argument must fulfill in order to be considered a good argument.  The premises should be plausible, the premises should be more plausible than the conclusion, and the argument should be valid or strong.

An example is: People who are sleeping do not answer their phone.  My brother did not answer his phone.  Therefore, he must be asleep.

The premise is plausible because usually when people are sleeping, they do not want to be disturbed so they will not answer their phone.  The premise is more plausible than the conclusion because my brother could have very well been sleeping, however if it was in the middle of the day he could have just been busy doing something else.  This argument is not strong because not all sleeping people ignore phone calls and there are many other reasons why my brother could have not answered his phone.

W2:D3 Prescriptive Claims

A prescriptive claim is when someone uses their own judgment to determine what should be.  The claim does not simply describe what is, but rather how it should be. For example, someone saying “Margaret is skinny,” is not a prescriptive claim because there is no claim on what should happen, rather there is only what is.  Instead, if someone said “Margaret should gain some weight,” this would qualify as a prescriptive claim because the person is stating what should happen.  Prescriptive claims are typically used to express value judgments.  Prescriptive claims are used when people want to differentiate from the good and the bad or the best and the worst based on their personal opinions.  Another example would be when parents say to their children “You should remember to floss”, or even “Don’t treat your brother so badly”.  These prescriptive claims show what the parents think is best for their children in their own judgment.

W2: D2 Vague Sentences

A vague sentence is very unspecific and so broad that a person cannot quite understand the speaker’s point without having them clarify it.

As I waited for my friend at the spot that we had agreed to meet at, I decided to call her to figure out how much longer she was going to take.  After I had asked her where she was, she replied with the vague response, “I’m almost there”.  She was already five minutes late, and hearing that sentence did not inform me much about where she was or how much longer she was going to take.  Did her sentence imply that she was only a couple feet away, or a couple miles away? How close is “almost”? Her sentence gave me no clarification on how far away she really was, which then led me to ask her more specific questions, so that I could receive more specific answers.

W2: D1 Subjective & Objective Claims

A subjective claim is based on a person’s own feelings and opinions.  A subjective claim can be true to someone with the same beliefs, feelings, or thoughts.  The other night when my friend was scooping me some ice cream, I peered into the bowl and claimed, “That is way too little”.  In my opinion, the portion was just not enough to satisfy me.  While on the other hand, my friend thought the amount was more than enough for one person to eat.

An objective claim is something that cannot be debated and is not based on personal opinions.  Earlier today as my roommate and I walked out of the door, I asked her if she locked the door and she said “The door is locked”.  It was a fact that the door was locked, and no matter what both of us believed or felt, the door would’ve been locked nonetheless.