Likes and Dislikes

My favorite part of the class was how we were able to interact with each other through an online class, with very minimal in-person interaction. This demonstrated our ability and potential to communicate with one another, and also showed everybody’s motivation and their willingness to meet deadlines and due dates. My least favorite thing about the class was the discussion posts. Sometimes it was tough to come up with ideas just to meet the word requirement. It was also challenging to comment on other people’s posts – sometimes, there just was not too much to be said that was not said already. I also felt the tests were on the challenging side, and did not really reflect what I have actually picked up from the class. Though there were practice exercises in the book, I feel that some sort of test review for the tests would have been an improvement to the class.

Generalizations

Generalization is a topic and idea that comes up in our every day lives. It happens quite often among individuals in many different scenarios. Generalizing occurs when a claim is made about a group from a claim that has some part of it. Though generalization can have good or bad connotations, it is often used, and sometimes in the wrong situations. There are three premises that are required for a strong generalization: the sample must be representative, the sample is big enough, and the sample is studied thoroughly. The idea of a generalization has a similar basis to the idea of making a strong argument. Though a generalization may make a claim about a group or population, there needs to be some margin of error (but not too large) for the population sample. Additionally, there also needs to be a confidence level for the population sample. This level will be larger, closer to at least 95% of the generalization.

What I Learned...

There are quite a few concepts that I have learned over the semester. Constructing an argument that is strong and has the potential to be debated over was a topic that seemed to come up throughout the class. But by demonstrating the different ideas and baseline rules that create a strong argument, I felt that we were able to complete our projects thoroughly and effectively. Additionally, many of the concepts that we were taught in the books and needed to write about in our blog involved real life experiences that occur quite frequently. This helps us to identify what types of ideas are being used in an argument. The chapter on reasoning by analogy and also the discussion of fallacies were quite interesting. It was very easy to adapt these ideas into our blog discussions since it was convenient to provide examples from our every day lives. Although this was an online class, our group projects also taught us how to work with other individuals on projects when our communication is somewhat limited.

Cause and Effect Website

The cause effect website dictates a chain reaction scenario in which an accident is caused mainly because of an illegally parked vehicle. The article then reveals that there are two rules to dealing with causations: “the cause must precede the event in time, and even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation.” In the bicycle and truck situation, the insurance companies argue about the primary cause of the accident. Finger pointing is very common in court cases. One party throws the fault on the other, and nobody admits to guilt. It is all about winning the case, and making sure your client comes out on top. But when it comes down to it, what was the initial cause for the accident? If the truck had not parked illegally, the bicycle would not need to swerve into traffic, which caused a chain reaction and resulted in a car rear-ending another car. This article helps to provide ideas which will strengthen an argument, and identify the main cause of a situation.

Cause and Effect

A cause and effect situation can be defined and described by claims. There is a relationship between the two, between the premises and conclusion of either a strong or valid argument. Two mistakes are often seen when evaluating a cause and effect situation. These two are: reversing the cause and effect, or looking too hard for the cause. An example of the first mistake can be seen here:

Bob: The more you shave your hair, the faster and thicker it grows back.
Rich: Why do you think so?
Bob: Well if I shave every day, and I seem to get a 5 o’clock shadow earlier and earlier every day.

Even if Bob is complaining about hair growing back by shaving often, he shaves every day regardless.

The second mistake occurs usually when someone jumps to a conclusion. Sometimes, not everything has a cause. Therefore, looking for a cause may sometimes be a waste if there is not one to begin with.

Mission: Critical

The Mission: Critical website has defines the steps to critical thinking and even has a tutorial which explains the concepts. The website is divided into sections, and consists of 4 main categories: the basics, analysis of arguments, fallacies and non-rational persuasion, and other common fallacies. The website also includes exercise and quizzes to test knowledge of the different fallacies. The purpose of this page is “to create a ‘virtual lab,’ capable of familiarizing users with the basic concepts of critical thinking in a self-paced, interactive environment.” San Jose State University’s Mission: Critical website does exactly what it was designed to do. By creating this web page, it allows students to sign on at any point and review or research any concepts that they are not familiar with. The basics section is an excellent introduction to the concept of critical thinking. Going through these individual pages lets a student grasp the simplest ideas of critical thinking. Browsing further into the subcategories will provide students with detailed explanations to analyzing arguments and fallacies. The web site is very well organized which makes it easy to navigate and find the information that you may be looking for.

Reasoning by Analogy

The text book defines reasoning by analogy as a comparison if it is part of an argument. If one side of the comparison draws a conclusion, the other side will conclude with the same. Analogies in the law is something I felt that should have been discussed in detail. One of the example introduced in the text book questions whether or not taxes apply to Internet purchases since mail-order purchases are taxed. This subject seems to be a little confusing, because of the variations of Grey areas when such legislative examples are discussed. The basis behind legal reasoning is reasoning by example. If this is the case, how do you reason with the fact that judges may rule differently depending on how the judge interprets an issue or a law? The book finally lists that even though judges may hold different rulings for similar cases, there are still differences between each individual case which will set it apart from a previous case.

Appeal to Vanity

Apple polishing is an appeal to vanity. It is essentially a negative type of an appeal. In these types of cases, it usually occurs when a reaction or decision is made because of another person’s actions, which usually involves some type of positive aspect towards the person making the decision. In essence, it is basically known as brown nosing, or kissing someone’s behind in order to get the praise or feedback that you want or desire. This happens all of the time in the working world. Many may have experience a situation similar to the one that I am going to describe;

“Eddie is a coworker of mine. He is lazy, sloppy, and always late. But he is always complimenting the manager, pointing the blame at others, and making himself stand out as a good worker. As a result, he received the largest Christmas bonus and will most likely receive a promotion.”

Eddie’s actions have caused the manager to move him up the ladder, because of appeals to vanity.

#6: Appeal to Spite

An appeal to spite is usually used to reject what someone believes has been seen in all the past elections with advertisements that rally against an opposing party. For example, Jerry Brown’s campaign used a brilliant advertisement on television that made the current governor and the Republican candidate, Meg Whitman, seem very unappealing. Jerry Brown’s campaign used an advertisement that contained many audio and visual clips of both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman separately, but each audio segment dictated phrases and sentences that were uttered by both individuals during both of their campaigns. They were 100% matched, word for word. The advertisement then questioned the public if this is what they desired. This was a brilliant smear move towards the Republican campaign – it demonstrated their lack of ability to fix California’s issues, and in essence, broken promises. This argument is an excellent argument, with a very convincing message. Due to the election results, I would say the advertisement did the job it was meant to do.

Appeal to Emotion

An appeal to emotion occurs when a premise dictates that because you feel a certain way, you should believe or do something as a result of that feeling. There are a few different types of appeals to emotion in arguments. These include appealing to pity, appealing to fear, and appealing to spite. Today, appealing to fear has struck me. A friend posted about how he was able to reach speeds of 90 mph on Highway 17. Someone instantly replied and commented about how that could result in his funeral. Car accidents and death are both very serious issues, so it definitely struck my attention. This demonstrates an appeal to fear, because the consequence for the action of speeding could result in an accident, and Highway 17 is notorious for these incidents. Not only that, the road is a dangerous when excessive speeds are reached. This type of driving will only leave more of a chance for possible deaths in the event of an accident.

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.

Addressing Sexual Harassment

According to Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual harassment is a form of discrimination.

When an employee makes a complaint of experiencing sexual harassment in any way, it is extremely serious. The employer has a legal, ethical, and employee relations obligation to thoroughly investigate the charges. Not only that, it is their responsibility to find out per quid pro quo. Also, the damage to the organization is much greater than that of the dollar losses of court cases. If the employee feels unsafe, he/she will feel anxiety, lack of trust, fear, and other such problems that come up when harassment is an issue. As such, an employer’s actions can send powerful signals about what another employee can expect in similar circumstances.

It is because of this that each organization should have policies on these three;
1. General harassment
2. Sexual harassment
3. How harassment investigations are conducted