Concept that I found useful

I thought that I found Chapter 11, about Fallacies, interesting and useful. With this Chapter, I was able to distinguish the different kinds of bad argument and recognize when they were being used. The examples helped me as well, because I heard those arguments so many times in my life and I didn't know they were considered as fallacies. So next time I hear someone saying one of the examples, I will know that it will be a bad argument. Many of the times it is hard to have a good argument with someone if they say a fallacies and most of the time it is hard to fix fallacies (sometimes). A lot of the time those fallacies are used in TV commercial, speeches, or campaigns. For examples, in campaigns such as PETA, they use appeal to emotion and bad appeal to common belief to make people feel guilty and stop eating meat or wear fur. The use of image is also a way to make people feel a certain way.

Favorite/less favorite

Well my favorite part of this class is that I was able to work in a group and meet people who were in the class. I enjoyed working in a group and learn from everybody else. The post also were interesting because I could see everyone's point of view and different blog. I just think that learning something new in general is what I like the most. I also liked the fact that this class was online other wise I don't think I would be able to place this class in my schedule.

The thing I really didn't like was the fact that I couldn't see the mistakes I've done on the test. If I saw the results, I would remember and take notes. But it didn't which one did I do well and which one I did poorly. I didn't like the fact it was timed. It is very stressful and distracting so that is why I did bad on the tests.

what I have learned

Before taking this course, I thought to myself "omg critical thinking! I don't think i'm that smart to think logically. But then when reading the book I found it very easy to understand and I eventually learned new information that I didn't know before. For example, I learned that there were many different kinds of fallacies and mistakes in a claim. Now if I am looking at a claim done by a commercial or anything on TV or in a Magazine, I would be able to analyze it before and judge wether or nor this claim makes sense or if it's a fallacy. Also I learned how to evaluate if an argument is week or strong depending on the context. I learned how to think before of what i'm gonna say in an argument. I just learned a lot of useful materials that I can actually use in life. The Epstein book critical thinking helped me a lot. Although, I wish we were able to look at our tests corrections, like that I would know to not do this mistake again.

Two mistakes when evaluating cause and effect

When reading the book, I found it very useful to know that there were common mistakes when evaluating cause and effect. According to Epstein, there are two types of common mistakes: a) reversing cause and effect. b) Looking too hard for a cause (308).

A. Reversing cause and effect

This is a common mistake that people do.
Here is an example:

Sarah: Exercising a lot makes you hungry and thirsty
Tim: Are you hungry and thirsty now?
Sarah: Nope because I haven't exercise yet.

Well Sarah said that she wasn't hungry because she hasn't exercised yet, but that is not the only way people can get hungry. Exercising is not the only cause of hunger and thirst.

B. Looking too hard for a cause

It is unnecessary to explain to a person what was the cause of that event. Some cause are not even sure or identified. Some are just coincidence like Epstein explains on page 309.

Mission Critical website

Inductive and deductive reasoning

I remember when we discussed this topic in one of the previous chapter and it seem vague to me. But when I read the website it gave a clear definition and comprehensible examples. According to the website, inductive reasoning are based on opinion, observation or experiences. Deductive reasoning is based on real facts or laws. For example, when I accidentally touched the pan on the stove it burned my hand and I remove my hand quickly . This is an example of inductive reasoning. When I say that the reason I removed my hand so fast, is because of nerves reactions or scientific fact.

To help me furthermore, I did the exercises below the lesson and that helped me distinguish that difference between an inductive and deductive phrase. It helped me to analyze first why one sentence is not a deductive reasoning: Could that sentence be an observation or experience instead?

Cause and Effect website

It took me a while to understand what the website about causal argument was describing, but the exercise help me clarify what it means. I also took at look at chapter 15 on page 302 to understand " causes and effects".
The "cause" according to the website is what happen so that it affected the other event. In other words, for example, the cold season caused Jim to wear warm clothes. Because it is cold outside and Jim does not want to be sick, he puts a coat, glove and scarf. Another example, the cat's presence caused Alice to sneeze. Because the cat was near Alice, she sneezed because of her allergies to cats. In other words the cat was the cause of her sneezing.
Cause and effect can also be described as a "domino effect" because one event can cause others events which can cause another one and another one, like the example used in the website.
On the website, they used the example of the accident with the bicyclist and two cars. I say that it is the truck's fault that he was parked illegally on the bicycle lane, which caused the bicycle to go on the traffic lane, and then caused the accident.

additional research: Judging Analogies

Epstein explained that reasoning by analogy is arguing with comparison. "On one side of the comparison we draw a conclusion, so on the other side we should conclude the same"(253).
At first when I read the definition of " Judging Analogies" on page 256, I was a bit lost and the book didn't explained really clearly. So I went online and find more information about it. Here is the link to the web site:

-http://www.gregcaughill.com/philosophy-wiki/philosophy-course-notes/104-arguments-by-analogy.html

According to Greg Caughill, the writer of the web site, said that there are four main flaws when judging analogies. 1) It could have a false premise. 2) Lookout for equivocations. 3) Unstated premises. 4) Lookout for fallacies. Then Caughill states that there are two questions that we might ask when judging an analogy:
A) Are the shared features relevant? If not, analogy fails B) Are they sufficient to establish the connection? No, the subjects are too much alike. Or no, they are way too different to make analogy.

Chapter 10 Question #7 " Appeal to patriotism"

7. Give an example of an appeal to patriotism. Is it a good argument? (195)

At first when I read the question, I was surprise to find that there was a kind of appeal of emotion called " appeal of patriotism".To learn a little bit more about it, I went online and found this online article by Glen Warchol:

-http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0823-04.htm

This article describes how protesters in the U.S use appeal to patriotism to protest against the war in Iraq. The mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky Anderson who was at the protest, used the appeal of patriotism to get support and fight against the war in Iraq. He said," We can debate, as we should in a free country, the decisions of our political leaders. But we must always support without wavering, and be grateful toward, our men and women in the armed forces" (Warchol). Anderson also claimed " we are grateful for what veterans have scarified for our country and our freedom". These statements above are examples of appeal to patriotism because they emphasize on the love of ones country in order to get people to act (like the protesters or activists).

Objective p.195

1. Write a bad argument in favor of affirmative action whose only premises appeal to pity.

People should stop hunting animals. It is unmoral and innocent animals get killed for no reason. Poaching is a sinful job because hunters go hunt animals for a money. Many of those animals that are being hunted are going extinct because of over-poaching such as tigers, rhinoceros ,elephants, jaguars, and other species. Do you like cute animals? Do you like chinchillas or baby seals? Well guess what, those poor little creature are being beaten to death for their fur, which is then sold for ridiculously expensive. How would you feel if you were separated from your family and beaten to death? You probably wouldn't want that. Humans are just purely selfish and kill innocent animals for their own profits.

This argument uses descriptions of tortured animals so that people feel pity for them. I personally do not like poaching and I do think it is purely unmoral.

Appeal to Emotion

According to Epstein, "An appeal to emotion in a argument is just a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way" (191).
There are four types of appeal of emotion in chapter 10 : appeal to pity, appeal to fear, appeal to spite, and appeal to vanity. The appeal to pity is trying to make you believe in something because you feel a certain way ( angry, happy,sad,...). The appeal of fear simply uses fear to control the way people should think or act. An appeal to spite is also seeking for revenge (193). The appeal of vanity is the use of compliments or flatters so that a person feels good about themselves. But the one that intrigued me was the appeal of spite. In the example used, Dick decides to help Tom even if Tom didn't helped Dick fix the fence last week and Zoe seem to be bothered by it (193). Maybe Tom had an appointment or he was sick or he is physically disabled. Personally, it wouldn't bother me to help someone else even if it takes them a while for them to help me in return. As long as they do me a favor back. :)

Further discussion : Repairing Arguments

 Repairing Arguments

I have some trouble on how to fix bad arguments because some arguments can't even be repaired at all. According to Epstein, to repair an argument we can either add a premise or a conclusion if it needs it. but we must consider that by making changes, 1) the argument will be valid or strong, 2) the premise is plausible, 3) the premise is more plausible than the conclusion (62) Yet that still remains confusing to me and how would I be sure that a repaired argument would be good or valid? So I done some research and I found this website by T. Gracyk that gave further explanation:

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20110/110definitions.htm#repair

The web site explain to analyze the argument and then suggest if the argument needs a premise or if it needs a conclusion. Here's an example that Gracyk used in his website:

"All cute animals have big eyes, so Muzzles have big eyes."
 What are Muzzles? They can be ugly creatures or a name of an object or town. this argument is too weak, and there is not enough information to confirm the validity of the argument. This argument need a premise to make it valid. As an example to repair the argument, Gracyk added " Muzzles are cute animals".

Discussion assignment #2

 Assignment # 2 : PETA      

When my group and I were working on assignment #2, it helped me understand the concept of critical thinking and to spot the slippery slopes, false dilemmas, and other fallacies found in articles. We choose PETA as a subject because they are known to be extreme but also many of their claims were found to be dubious. We found out that PETA used bad appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, bad appeal to common belief,and reasoning in a chain. They used captions like "meat is murder" or pictures of mistreated animals to capture  the audience's attention. The use of celebrities or activists is an example of bad appeal to authority because people will believe them just because of their fame. Looking through the articles, my group members and I found out that some of their statements were not updated and were claim taken from data's back in the 80's.  Working on this project helped me how to analyze an argument and determine if it is valid or weak.

Chapter 8 General claims

Precise generalities

There are many words that indicate precise quantity (or number) of object or people (Epstein, 170)
All, one, half, a quarter, etc are examples of precise quantities.
For example, when I cook from a recipe book, it is important that the book indicates precise quantities so that I add up the right amount  of ingredient. Many people misuse the generalities and could lead the claim to a bad argument. For example, my sister and I used to argue a lot and I remember her saying, "I think all preppy girls in high school are mean". By misusing the generality word, she over estimated her opinion. Not all preppy girls are mean. If she wanted to correct her claim, she would have said " Not all, but some preppy girls in my high school are not nice to other people".

Vague generalities

Vague generalities do not precise the right amount (or number) of people or object. They are too vague which may make a claim ambiguous. Some, a few, not a lot, a lot, most, etc are vague words. For example, one of my teacher always announce grades in front of the class and she always say" A few of you had a C or a D and the rest have a B or an A" I seriously don't like when the teacher does that because I'm always afraid i'm one of those few students who got a C or D. besides how much is a few, and how much is the rest? This claim is too vague.

Refuting an argument chapter 7

According to Epstein, there are two ways to refute an argument: directly and indirectly (149).

Direct ways of refuting an argument

• 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.

This will help me to understand what premises are false or dubious or if the conclusion don't make any sense.
here's an argument:

Alex: I believe that homework should be done in class.
It saves time.
Students barely have any time outside of class to do homework.
Some people have work, while others have other activities.
Besides the teacher is not there in case we need help.

Now here's Dane refute to his argument:

Class time is meant for lectures and new lessons.
There are tutors on campus in case a student needs help with homework.
Some people who have jobs do have time to do homework. ( their work schedule is planed around their classes and leave enough time for HW).

The indirect way to refute an argument is to simply not mention them, but to know that they are false or dubious, for example listening to a speech on TV.

Counterarguments chapter 7

Raising Objections

When making an argument, there's always going to be a counterargument, meaning a claim that will contradict the previous claim. These contradicting claims are called " objections". Here is an example that I made on my own of a bad argument between Suzy and Jim :

Suzy: People should not eat meat because it's animal cruelty.
Jim: Human beings need to eat meat because they need protein to develop.
       Specially children, they need it for growth.
Suzy: But you can find protein in other food. Or you can buy supplement pills.
Jim: supplement pills tend to be expensive.
Suzy: Plus slaughter house are not treating animals properly.
Jim: What does it matter? You'll eat the meat eventually
Suzy: Stressed and abused animals can make their meat taste bad
Jim: You know not all slaughter houses treat them poorly. For example organic meat.
Suzy: Besides, cows, pigs and chicken cost a lot because you need water and food and a shelter to keep them.They take a lot of space
Jim: So what? People occupy more space on the planet than those animals. So if you think they take too much space, then we should eat them.
Suzy: No  
Jim: If people stop eating meat what are we gonna do with all the cows, pigs and chicken in the world?
Suzy:....?

This is an interesting argument because it has so many pros and cons, showing many objections in this counterargument.

Attempts to refute that are bad arguments

This is the attempt to reduce an argument to make it less vague but can sometimes become a slippery slope or ridicule( Epstein, 151).

Here's an example:

A: Steeve is not feeling well today, I think he has a cold and a fever.
B: How do you know?
A: he looked pale,tired and I saw him coughing a lot.
B: Do you think he has the swine flu?
A: That could be a possibility judging his terrible condition.
B: Well hope that he doesn't grow a swirly tail, flat nose and hooves.

That's terrible :(. What if Steeve really had swine flu? I don't think that would be the case to make fun of, considering that Swine flu can be deadly.

Compound claims Chapter 6

Compound claims
According to Epstein, a compound claim is one that is composed of two claims (113).
This is a compound claim:

- We will probably go to the mall or stay at home.
- I'll bake a cake, and share it with everybody.
Sometimes compound claims connects two claims with the word "or" or "and", but not necessarily.
Do not get confused with a false dilemma because not all compound claims are false dilemmas.

Reasoning with "or" claims

This is a pattern called the disjunctive syllogism to help understand an argument with a compound claim.

A or B                A or B
not B       or        not A
so A                    so B

Here's an example:

Either Sarah plays with the kids outside, or she will do her homework.
But the kids are not playing outside.
So therefore, she will do her homework.

This argument is valid because the premises are true and so is the conclusion.

Mistaking the person for the claim

Epstein says that you shouldn't reject nor accept a claim just because the person who says it (97). There are many examples in daily life that reflect this mistake. For example, many republican make the mistake to disagree with Obamas' claims during his speeches just because he is a democrat. That doesn't mean that because he is a democrat, the republicans have to disagree. They may have different points of view but that does not mean that their claim is false. 
Now here's another example: when you go to the doctor and he diagnosed you with a liver disease or epilepsy, do you believe him right away? Do you believe him because he is a doctor and that he has more knowledge than you? That's understandable but doctors aren't always 100% right. People presume that just because he is a doctor that he is right. Yet some doctors are not sure or just made a false claim. Maybe you don't have a liver disease but a stomach ache or food poisoning. People shouldn't judge the person and mistake them for the claim.

Advertising on the Internet

Now here's an advertisement that everybody knows ----->  http://www.proactiv.com

           First of all, this ad really annoys me because nothing is believable. They always use celebrities for their commercials which makes the advertisement phony. Celebrities have beautiful skin because they have enough money to go to the best dermatologist. When they used regular people for their " real stories" they probably chose only the people which Proactive worked or maybe they photoshoped their faces. What about the rest of the people who tried it? Did it not work for them? Also in the ad, they say that it is " for all type of  skin". Normally every skin is different and requires different kinds of products depending on the type of skin you have (oily, dry or mixed). So this premise is dubious and false. I hear that apparently if you stop using Proactive your face will break out again and then you have to keep buying the product. I have used it in the past and it did not work for me because it dried and irritated my skin. Because of my personal experience with Proactive and other peoples' claim about the product, I believe that his ad has weak claims which makes it dubious.

Repairing Arguments

Here is an example of an argument that needs to be fixed:

- Kids who listen to their parents music ( from the 60's, 70's and 80's) will most likely have the same taste as them. Kids who do not listen to their parents' music will most likely listen to other kind of music .

Analysis: Well I would say this argument is valid but not completely true. Kids and teens who like to listen to their parents music from the 60's, 70's, and 80's will most likely listen to the same kind of music. Their parents where an influence on them. On the other hand, kids or teens who do not listen to their parents' old music are more likely to listen to other type of music such as mainstream, Pop, Rap, Electro, and others. They are more likely to listen to what is popular at school or among their peers. Their parent's music weren't an influence on them. But then again it is not the same case for everyone, so...

To fix this argument I will need to add the conclusion which is:

-Most kids who listen only to modern music must have parents who did not influence them in their music preferences.

Organizational culture

Organizational culture

According to O'Hair and Wiemann, "an organizational culture provides guidance about appropriate norms and behaviors"(55).

When I read this passage, for some reason I had two pictures in my mind: First I had a visual of japanese business men working in cubicles and then I had a vision of the TV show "The Office" ( love that show by the way ^^ ).
Well for example, I imagined the japanese business men being very polite to each other, working very late in silent or listening to their boss without interrupting. They seem very serious about their job and want things done perfectly. I would imagine it is the "appropriate behavior"if you would be working in a office in Japan.
On the other hand, when I think of the TV show " The Office", I see the complete opposite of the japanese business men. All the characters in the show seemed to be distracted by their co-workers and often time will do anything but work. Michael who is their boss does not seem to take things seriously and does not have enough authority. Dwight, the goof ball in the office is the one who likes to cause trouble and be the center of attention. It's disorganized.This imagine is an example of "inappropriate norms and behaviors".

Content Fallacies

False dilemma

• A false dilemma is an argument that offers only two choices when normally, there are alternate choices that are not mentioned.The words "or"or "and" are commonly used in a false dilemma.
• Either A or B is true or false. If A is false, then B must be true. There are no other options. but sometimes A and B can be true.
• Also known as "black or white" fallacy.

Here is an example that I heard on TV:

In the United States, you are either a democrat or a republican.

Ok well the two options are true, but then again, there are other parties in the U.S besides democrat and republicans like the Independent party, Constitution party, Green party or Libertarian party. And what about those people who do not have a stand? This is a false fallacy because 2 options where offered and the alternative choices were left out.

Exercise on the Structure of Arguments

Exercise # 1

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. a
He never drives any of them. 2
They look all old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. b
It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values. 3

Argument? Yes

Conclusion: It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.

Additional premises needed? "if a and b, then 1." In other words, it is possible to say, " If people do not like living next door to such mess and the cars look all old and beat up and leak oil all over the place, then my neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard."

Identify any subargument: a and b are independent and support the conclusion, 3.

Good argument? Yes because the premises are plausible and support the conclusion, so the argument is valid.

Effective leadership

Effective Leadership

I think the passage of "Effective leadership" on page 36 ( The essential guide to group communication) was interesting and useful. Usually when I am working in a group, I am usually the person that barely speaks or make important decisions. Even in a group of friends, I'm always a follower or a shadow. I would like to stand out and show to my classmates or co-worker that I am responsible, influential but also that I take action.  O'Hair and Wiemanm say that to be an effective leadership, one must:

• Bring desirable outcomes: the outcomes must be positive and influential to the members.
• Enhance credibility with the group: to be a leader, one must be knowledgeable and experienced
• Inspire and motivate group members to participate: it is important that the leader supports his members and encourage them to participate in decision making and reward them.

Now I have learned how I can be a leader in my group by following those tips :)

Strong vs. Valid argument

 Whether an argument is valid or strong does not depend on:

• Whether the premises are true.
• Whether we know the premises are true.
• Whether the person making the argument thinks the argument is valid or strong

For example, this is a valid argument:
-Suzy is allergic to peanuts. So she will not eat a peanut butter jelly sandwich. 


This argument is valid but not strong. The premises might be true, but the conclusion may be false. Possibly Suzy will eat the sandwich without the peanut butter or she can have almond butter instead. Or maybe she is taking medication to help her fight her allergies and therefore she can eat peanuts.


Now here is the same argument, but told in a different way:
-Suzy cannot eat peanuts because of her allergies. So she cannot eat a peanut butter jelly sandwich.


This argument is strong because the premise is believable and so is the conclusion. Because of her allergies, Suzy cannot eat the sandwich.

Test for an argument to be good

Test for an argument to be good

• The premises are plausible.
• The premises are more plausible than the conclusion.
• The argument is valid or strong

A valid argument is an argument that cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.
A strong/weak argument is an argument that somehow has true premises but a false conclusion.
The conclusion is the judgment of the premises.

Here is an example of an argument that is good:

-Lizards are reptiles. reptiles are vertebrates. So lizards are vertebrates.

Analysis As we can see, both of the premises are true, because everyone knows lizards are reptiles and that reptiles fall in the category of vertebrates, which makes the conclusion true. In order words, because people know that the premises are true, it leads them to believe that the conclusion is right. The argument is valid because both premises  and the conclusion are true.

vague/ambiguous sentences

Vague sentences are phrases that do not make any sense or lack of clarity. An ambiguous sentence is a phrase that can have both meanings depending on the words. Often times, foreigners have difficulties understanding people speaking english because a clear sentence can sound vague to them. My first language is french and sometimes I have difficulties understanding my mom when she gives me instructions. My mom is terrible at giving instructions.
I remember one time she left a note saying that I had to prepare dinner.I had to make a casserole dish. I followed the instructions until it said " mix ingredients together". Which ingredients? All of them? Half of them? I didn't know which one to mix first because there was an order. I tried to call my mom at her work for further explanation, but she didn't pick up because she was at a conference. Unsure of myself, I decided to mix all the ingredients together at once. Result? The casserole ended up half burned and tasting bad :( My mother forgot to precise which ingredients and in what order I needed to mix the bather. That is why it is important to be precise when giving instructions and use clear sentences.

Subjective and Objective Claims

A subjective claim is an opinion that a person has and that statement can not be proved to be true or false.
As an example, I believe that the french country side is a beautiful and peaceful place. French country side has a lot of hiking places, creeks, and restaurants called "venta". Obviously I'm attache to it because it is my native country. My boyfriend disagrees with me and says that the bay area is prettier than the french country side. He as well is attache to his country, which is why he has a different belief. Our beliefs varies because we see things differently. His definition of "beautiful" is different than what I think is "beautiful".

An objective claim is a statement that is based on facts and can be proved to be true or false. Scientific hypothesis are good examples of objective claims because they are conclusions done based on observations. Yet, they do not need to be true. For instants, the cheetah is the fastest animal in the world. This statement is true because many scientist have calculated the speed of the animal. On the other hand, saying that the earth is the center of the universe is a false statement. Early scientists discovered that the planet was instead located on an orbit and the sun was in the center. These facts above are examples of objective claims.

Introductory Post

Hi everyone! :)

My name is Lea, I took COMM 20N sophomore year, I am an Illustration major and I am bilingual.
I was born in France so that is why I speak fluently french and english. I love art, being outdoors and hanging out with my friends. I hope I'll learn and succeed in comm 41 :)