W9: D3 Ways of reasoning with "All"

A concept from chapter 8 that I found very useful was the use of "all" in arguments.  There is a direct way of reasoning with "all" that will lead to a valid argument, and there is a way of arguing backwards with "all" that will typically lead to a weak argument.

 The direct way of reasoning with "all" follows this structure:

All B are C

T is B

So T is C

An example of this would be:

All babies wear diapers.

Tom is a baby.

So Tom wears diapers.

This leads to a valid argument.

Arguing backwards with "all" leads to generally weak arguments like this:

All babies wear diapers.

Tom wears diapers.

So Tom is a baby.

This is a weak argument because not every single person that wears a diaper is a baby.  This argument is weak because it disregards many other possibilities and therefore it is not a dependable argument.

W9: D2

                Typically, I like working in groups so I was excited when I learned that we would have a group assignment.  I was also very curious and hesitant as to how it would work out since it was an assignment for an online class.  Thankfully, it all worked out well and it was a very interesting experience being placed to work with group of people that I initially had never met or seen before.  I thought this was useful for helping me gain experience for if I ever have to work with people in another state or just not be able to physically work with someone.  The first assignment itself also allowed me to gain experience with analyzing real claims in articles involving present issues, and also find and analyze the evidence used to support the claim.  Overall, the first major course assignment was very beneficial to improving my communication skills.

W9: General Claims, "All" and "Some"

                What do “all” and “some” mean?  Both “all” and “some”, have meanings that depend on the argument.  All means, “Every single one, no exceptions”.  All can sometimes mean “Every single one, and there is at least one”.  Some means, “At least one”.  Some can also mean “At least one,but not all.”

                The word “some” is typically used when someone is trying to be vague.  The speaker is not being accurate and wants their options to be broad.  For example, when I asked my brother if I could eat “some” of his chips, I was really asking him if I could eat a majority of the bag.  He replied by saying I could eat “some”.  That answer was very nonspecific and allowed me to interpret it the way I wanted to which was that I could eat a majority of the bag, when he could have really only meant to allow me to have one or two.  He really should have been more specific.  Nevertheless, by saying I could have “some”, he was guaranteeing that I could at least have one chip.

W7: D3 Refuting an Argument

A concept from Chapter 7 that I found interesting was refuting an argument.  Being able to show that an argument is unrepairable is helpful in refuting an argument. In order to refute an argument one must see that the following three occur:

-          Show that at least one of the premises is dubious.

-          Show that the argument isn’t valid or strong.

-          Show that the conclusion is false.

An example argument would be:

It is always best to cut your own hair.  Salons are always busy.  The hairdresser never cuts your hair the way you want it.  You will end up leaving sad and ugly.  Therefore, it is simply best to cut your own hair.

This argument can be refuted by pointing out that most of the premises are unreliable and just not true.  It is false to say that all salons are always busy and it is also false to say that all hairdressers never cut hair the way a person wants it.  The argument is not strong at all because the premises and the conclusion are simply weak, most of the claims being completely false.  Due to these factors, the argument can easily be refuted. 

W7: D2 Counterarguments

There are many times when people will attempt to refute with a counterargument, but will simply have a bad argument.  Chapter 7 discusses the counterarguments: ridicule and a strawman.

Ridicule is insignificant in an argument.   It doesn’t help or really do anything in a discussion but shows how immature and demeaning the speaker is.  A person will use ridicule when they are incapable of thinking of an appropriate response for a counterargument.  Ridicule is meant to make the other person upset and make them feel belittled.   An example of ridicule is:

Student: I think you made a mistake on the problem.

Teacher:  Do you think you are Albert Einstein now?  Did you not fail the last quiz?

Here the teacher chose to avoid facing the mistake that was brought his attention and instead chose to humiliate and belittle the student.

A Strawman is when a person makes a claim, and the other person refutes it by putting words in that person’s mouth.  An example of a Strawman is:

Bob: Cupcakes are unhealthy for you.

Betty: So are you saying that I’m fat?

Bob: I said nothing like that!

Betty’s claim is a strawman because she blatantly put words into Bob’s mouth.

W7: D1 Reasoning In A Chain & The Slippery Slope

Two things I learned from Chapter 6 are Reasoning In A Chain and The Slippery Slope. 

Reasoning in a chain is a chain of conditionals that go step by step.  An example of reasoning in a chain is:

      If I go to the Britney Spears concert tomorrow, then I won’t be home for dinner.

      If I’m not home for dinner, then my mom won’t have to set a plate for me.

      If my mom doesn’t have to set a plate for me, then she will have fewer dishes to wash.

      So if I go to the Britney Spears concert tomorrow, my mom will have fewer dishes to wash.

It can also be looked at like this:

      If A, then B.  If B, then C.  So if A, then C.              

If A is true, we can confidently conclude C.  This is a valid form of an argument; there is no possible way for its premises to be true and its conclusion false at the same time.

However, a bad form of the reasoning in a chain argument is the slippery slope. The slippery slope argument is a bad argument that also uses a chain of conditionals, but at least one of which is not true or doubtful.  An example of the slippery slope is:

       Don’t eat chocolate! If you do, you’ll get addicted.  Then you won’t be able to stop buying chocolate.     Then you’ll run out of money.  Then you’ll become a bum on the streets and be a disappointment to your whole family!

I find that the slippery slope is definitely not a good argument but it is a rather funny one.  I hear this type of argument all the time in movies and it is just used to exaggerate someone’s worries or thoughts. 

W6: D3 Inferring and Implying

When a person doesn’t clearly state a conclusion, he or she is implying the conclusion.  By implying something, a person usually wants the other person to figure out what they are trying to say on their own.  When a person concludes that an unstated claim is the conclusion, he or she is inferring that claim.  Both inferring and implying are risky because it is very easy to misinterpret and ultimately misunderstand. 

Example:

Bill is starving and his friend Bob is eating a big delicious burger.  Bill cries out “I am starving!!”  Bob might think that Bill is trying to imply that he wants to have some of his burger.  Bob will then infer that Bill wants him to share.  When in actuality, Bill is just sharing his feelings at the moment and has a pizza on the way.  

I think it is important to clearly offer conclusions and state what you really want so that people don’t have to assume or guess at what you are trying to say/imply. 

W6: D2 Advertisement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moPZNg-2878

Nowadays, I can rarely sit down and watch television without a Proactiv commercial coming on with a new celebrity endorsing it.  This commercial shows Katy Perry supporting Proactiv.  She shared about her history with pimples and how Proactiv drastically cleared up her skin.  Being a fan of Katy Perry, I was more interested in watching this commercial and I was also more open to trusting its claim.  By using Katy Perry to promote this product and its claim, her fans like me, will typically accept this claim because they admire and trust her opinion.  However, I also want to reject this claim because I have multiple friends who have tried Proactiv and say that it did absolutely nothing for them, which contradicts everything that Katy Perry has said.  I cannot accept or reject Proactiv from my own personal experience because I have never tried it.  Luckily, I do not have a problem with acne so I don’t have to worry about having to acquire personal experience with Proactiv.