General Claims

I think it's interesting how there are so many ways we can make general claims and it's hard to set formulas for contradictories. I also find it interesting how when people try to win in an argument that sometimes they contradict themselves. For example, an acquaintance said "I have free movie tickets since one of my high school friend works at the theater" to a friend of mine. She didn’t know that this friend was close to me. The weird thing about it is that she only knew I started working there because she recently went to see a movie at the theater I work at. Just because we’ve met a couple of times, it doesn’t mean she’ll get anything for free from me. I believe she can use some tips on general claims. When we say something to someone, we should make sure that it is the truth (because lies usually contradict anyway...).

Useful Assignments

Both course assignments are very helpful projects that will aid in our individual futures. By discussing the validity, strengths, and weaknesses of claims, we are introduced to new tools that will help us to evaluate statements that we may come across in our lives. Additionally, both assignments have actually helped with communication skills. With technology playing such a large role in communication for current times, many of us have elected to take an online class for various reasons… But sitting behind a computer screen and communicating to another individual sometimes creates a communication block; there is no physical interaction. By assigning group projects for an online class, it forces the students to communicate effectively and efficiently, for many of us have busy schedules that may be tough to accommodate for one another. This can be carried into future careers, where many large corporations contain many locations in different parts of the world.

General Claims and Their Contradictories

General claims are a statement or statements that entail a discussion in a general way about a part of or all of an entire group of subjects. But these types of claims are not always true. For example, if one were to say, “I love Red Bull. Red Bull gives me energy and keeps me awake. Therefore, I am a healthy person.” This is quite a stretch. Just because Red Bull does what is stated, and an individual drinks Red Bull, does not automatically mean the person is in good health. There is not enough evidence to support such a claim.

Precise generalities are often seen with stereotypes. This occurs when a general statement is made that lists a quantity, but is not necessarily true. Let’s take a common stereotype: “70% of Asians are bad drivers. I am Asian. Therefore, I am a bad driver.” Regardless of whether or not the statistic is true, this is a general claim. Is it possible that I do not fall into the 30% of Asian drivers that may be deemed a good driver? This is not a strong claim.

Refuting Arguments with Ridicule

Ridicule is often used to refute bad arguments. Generally, ridiculing a bad argument would most likely be offensive, and may even be considered humorous, depending on the sense of humor of the individual of the opponent or the target audience. Ridiculing a bad argument occurs quite frequently in the work place. For example, while working in the Information Technology department and dealing with a virus infected computer, Person A might claim that they have a fix for the virus by completely wiping out the system and starting over. Person B would then refute and discredit Person A by pointing out that formatting the computer would result in the user having the possibility of losing important data. Person A might then retort by saying, “well if I start the entire PC image over again, then the virus would be guaranteed to be cleaned.” While the statement is true, Person A is trying to ridicule Person B by saying that the problem will be resolved – regardless of whether or not the customer is happy or content with the possibility of data loss. Instead of going this route, Person A should find another work around to clean the system of any infected software.

Compound Claims

Compound claims and contradictory of claims are both mentioned in Chapter 6. A compound claim involves a statement that is made up of more than one claim, but when combined, they are interpreted as a single claim. An example of a compound claim is this: “Unless I end up breaking your cake holder, I will buy a new pan for you. Otherwise, you get your old one back.” In this case, the two claims actually become one single claim, because it will either be option A or option B.

A contradictory of a claim is the complete opposite of the claim that is made, no matter what the circumstance is. For example, if one were to say, “Alex is a moron,” then the contradictory of a claim is the exact opposite: “Alex is a genius.” In this case, the first claim is making an opinionated statement, while the second claim completely disregards the first claim and makes a claim that is directly the contrary of the first.

Counterarguments

There are two ways to refute an argument - directly and indirectly.

When refuting directly, there are three fundamental ways:
1. Show that at least one premise is ambiguous.
2. Show that the argument is invalid or weak.
3. show that the conclusion is wrong.

How can one refute an argument directly?
- You can object to one of the statements.
- You can agree with the statement, but not the conclusion.
- You can attack the conclusion.

Example;
Jane: Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are my favorite, therefore, they are the best sandwiches.
- Tammy may agree that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is delicious, but she doesn't think they are the best. She likes grilled cheese more. Does that mean that those are the best? It all depends on personal experience and tastes.


In refuting an argument indirectly, you are reducing to the absurd, which is to show that at least one of the many claims is false or unacceptable by drawing an unwanted conclusion.

Example;
A couple has three children, two girls and one boy (the boy being the youngest). They want one more boy, so they feel that they must have at least two more kids.
- They don't need to have two more kids just to be sure to have a boy. The fourth child can be the next boy. They might end up with two more girls if they try twice. Also, if they can afford it, they can do artificial insemination or have a surrogate mother.

Mistaking the Person for the Argument

Everybody has standards for whether an argument is good or bad. Reasonable people will refute an argument only if it is bad, as reasonable people wouldn't reject a claim just because of who said it; they are both almost one and the same. In other cases, whether the argument is good or bad is solely on the person who feels that way.

For example:
Jamie: I went to Jackie’s house to talk about my guy problems. She said that the best way to start talking to new people and meet great guys is to put myself out there more.
Anna: You can’t be serious. She can’t even keep a guy herself!

Anna is making an implicit argument: “Don’t listen to what Jackie has to say about guys because she can’t get a boyfriend.” In order to make her argument strong, we need the premise to be implausible. “(Almost) any argument that someone who can’t find a guy gives about getting one is bad.

Repairing Arguments

Kim: She must like all rodents.
Minji: Why is that?
Kim: Because she likes hamsters.

Minji shouldn't dismiss the reasoning just because the link from premises to conclusion is missing. She should ask what's needed to make it strong by the Principle of Rational Discussion. We can't make this valid by saying that "she likes all rodents" because hamsters are just one species of several types of rodents. An obvious premise that can also be added is "All rodents are hamsters." We all know that this is false (guinea pigs, mice, rats) and can assume that Kim does, to, since he knows about the subject.
In that case, we have to try to make the argument valid. From there, we can see whether that claim is plausible to the other person.
It's possible that the premise is true, but the conclusion is false. Though there is no connection between the two in this example, we know that our conclusion (She must like all rodents) can be false, invalid, and weak.

Advertising on the Internet

I decided on talking about Sensa, a weight-loss system that was designed to work with your sense of smell to trigger "fullness." All you do is sprinkle this sort of powder on top of your food before you eat it, and it apparently makes you eat less.

To start off... Really? Just sprinkle some random concoction on your food and it will automatically make you feel full faster? Just like the full bar, which you eat half an hour before your meal itself, therefore making you eat less of your meal? Come on, people!

The website says that you don't need to do anything, just use this product and you will lose weight. I don't think this is valid or strong, though, because the studies that were done were clinical. There is no research to back it up, and the subjects were tested, but not in a controlled environment. And this "trigger" that makes you feel full faster is, in my honest opinion, just something to psychologically trick you into thinking so, therefore the fullness actually happens.

My little brother actually tried this product, and it didn't work. For all we know, it could just be a sign telling us just how much he really eats so it doesn't affect him. Another reason can be that he thought about trying it, but wasn't so hyped up about the powder helping him feel more satiated.

If I think, therefore I am.