week ( Nov. 13- Nov.19 ) - q2

I think that the mission critical website is very good. I find it useful but I think some changes still need to be done to it. I like the index since I do not need to search through pages and it is very easy to use. I like that it’s online that way no book needs to be carried or bought and it is very easy to reach at any time. Over all works great. When I was looking through it I found the exercises helpful since they give you the right answer right away and it is explained/ broken down to simple lettering that can be followed. Un like a book that might not have the answer or that might have the answer right next to it that can be seen without trying the exercise before.  I think it can be a bit confusing since I had never used it before and I had to understand and tried to figure out how it worked. 

week ( Nov. 13- Nov.19 ) - q1

In cause and effect reading the reading was helpful as well the exercises because the reading connects the topic to claims that we have read about the entire semester. The reading explains there is a “very strong relationship” between the two claims and that normal conditions are normally assumed. Normally conditions are obvious claims that are there and do not need to be stated to say a cause and effect have a strong/ valid relationship. The exercises give you a taste how it would be approached in a regular situation. Then sometimes it is easier to understand it from the examples/ exercises than the actual writing. Such the first exercise gives a broken down example of particular and general cause and effects. The actual exercise is easy to follow because it shows a real example instead of the Spot barked and Dick woke up. Then after that exercise it is easier to connect it to “the police car‘s siren got me to pull over” which can be seen as a general because a police siren will make anyone to pull over to the side. 

week ( Nov. 13- Nov.19 ) - q3 concept

The part that I found most interesting in the reading is Criteria for cause and effect this seem most useful because it not only tells what is necessary but furthers the explanation of what “cause and effect” is. In Critical thinking by Richard L. Epstein it says gives the list needed for the cause and effect: the cause happened, the effect happened, the cause preceded the effect, almost impossible for cause to happen and effect not to happen given normal conditions, the cause makes a difference, there is no common cause (307).  The “summery” says that a cause and effect is composed of those things so if it does not have them then it is not a cause and effect. It explains that a cause and effect has two parts that have to happen which are the cause and the effect. Then further says that the effect must happen after the cause and that there is no almost no possible way for the cause to happen and the effect not to take place. Furthermore, it points out that there can no be any other reason for the effect besides the cause. 

week ( Nov. 6- Nov.12 ) - q3 concept

The part that I was most intrigued by is, understanding “reasoning by analogy”. If the concept itself is broken down “reasoning” means to conclude, then “analogy” is a comparison when place together it means to conclude from comparison.  The meaning is most understandable in the summary of the chapter on page 259 and page 253; the critical thinking text book says “when drawing a conclusion from a comparison, we are reasoning from analogy” (259).  This means that when a conclusion is drawn for a situation the same conclusion should be drawn for a similar. The fact that reasoning by analogy can be applied to law is very interesting. I had never thought that law had such complexity. When trying to connect a case to the law judges must find the most fitted way to connect the case to the written laws. I always knew “the law” could not be changed overnight but the truth that trying to change is law takes a complete breakdown that would disconnect it to older case. 

week ( Oct. 30- Nov. 5) - q2 pg 195

Make up an appeal to some emotion for the nest time a traffic officer stops you.

Oh. Officer was I going over the speed limit? I am truly sorry, I had just has a hard day at school and work. I am just so tired going to school full time and also work full time. I promise to place aside everything else and pay complete attention to the speedometer from now on. I am sure a strong, intellectual and very understanding officer like you can understand that I did not mean to speed.

In this statement I am appealing to pity and to vanity. I first make myself seem miserable from school and work which he or she can probably connect with. The appeal a full time job with full time school may pull some pity appeal from the officer. Then I appeal to vanity by saying how strong, smart and understandable he (hopefully) or she look like

week ( Oct. 30- Nov. 5) - q3 concept

The concept that I liked the most was appeal to vanity because most humor movies have some in it. The appeal to vanity is appealing to what you feel proud of. For example, appealing to vanity would be going to a teacher and saying that you think you (the student) deserve an “A” in class because he or she is a great teacher. The reason the student is giving has nothing to do with class but they are appealing to the teachers teaching skills. In school we all remember “the teacher’s pet”, or maybe you were “the teacher’s pet” a nickname placed on the student that could try so hard to connect to the teacher by saying he or she was the best teacher they had ever had or they would simply compliment anything the teacher did. “The teacher’s pet” had a great understanding of how to appeal to the teacher’s vanity. Like in humor movies there is always the girl flirting with the security guard trying to distract the guard from noticing the people breaking into the building. They normally appeal to vanity by pointing out how strong they look or smart. I think appeal to vanity can be great to deal with.  

week ( Oct. 30- Nov. 5) - q1

In chapter 10 the appeal that strikes me the most would be appeal to fear because it can cause a lot of change. The appeal to fear is to connect to the fear people have, to persuade them to agreeing with their argument. Over the years we have seen the repetition of fear being used to hurt other humans beings that should had never been hurt. For example, reservation camps that have been used when America has felt threaten for it security, those camps were suggested by someone and the whole country agreed as they were scared by something else. The most recent would be “weapons of mass destruction” that war lasted so many years but as many of you may know we are still in Iraq fighting against “terror”. That war was started by appealing to the fear the country was in after 9-11. Appealing to fear has changed history over the years and not just in this country. As this appeal can be used to elect a person as Mayor it can also be used to harm other.  

week ( Oct. 16 - Oct. 22)- q2

A concept that I found interesting was between all and one. The section explains how there is a direct way, arguing backwards, and chain form with “almost all”. The pages explain that they are vague generalities.  The direct way with almost refers to the idea, almost all S are P, a is S, so a is P, this way is usually strong according to the reading. Then, arguing backwards with “almost all” is usually weak. The idea behind that is almost all S are P, a is P, so a is S. under chain “almost all” is usually weak as well. The idea is, almost all S are P, and almost all P are Q, so almost   all S are Q.  I personally think that these almost can be problematic because there seems to be much assuming between every row. I personally think people use them to setup stereotypes that cannot be proven to be true.  

week ( Oct. 16 - Oct. 22)- q3

The usefulness of the first and second major assignment is not only to make sure students can understand the concept correctly but to acknowledge that everything discussed in class/ bogs is part of our daily lives. When thinking about articles or any paper I personally had not thought about fact that to some level even when the writer are trying to not be bias they will still add some personal view. They use fallacies that are not obvious to us because we are so used to them from all the media. Then when analyzing a website or organization it is easy to see the appeals they used but hard to identify because we are constantly bombarded by them in every website or commercial we see.  Will this class teaches us about claim, appeal, and fallacies and much more it can be hard to apply to real life where it is most necessary. This class gives us, the student the key but we, as students must be able to find the correct lock to unlock and open the door to a world that exposes the real view to properly analyze. For example I would never think that every website and commercial has an appeal that can be hard to identify without placing some thought into it.

week ( Oct. 16 - Oct. 22)- q1t

The concept that I found useful is “general claims and their contradictions” because it has open my eyes to the real meaning under claims professionals make. The major claims are “all”, “some”, “some are not”, “no”, and “only S are P”, these claims are used constantly but most people not know the dark side they can have. The contradictory claim are “some are not” & “not every”, “no” &“all are not”& “not even one”, “all are”, “some P are not S” & “not every P is S”. the meaning behinds each word can be eye opening.

 All = “every single one no exceptions”

Some = “at least one”

Only = “only S and P” means “all P are S”

No = “not even one”

The part that is most concerning part to me is “some” because “some” is constantly used everywhere. For example teachers use it to persuade people into enrolling into workshop or afterschool programs. They say that some students do better by enrolling into a workshop or program, but they might mean that “at least one” student/person does better. I personally used to think some meant at least 3.  

week ( Oct. 2- Oct. 8)- q2

In chapter 7 the main cover in this chapter is refuting arguments but it also covered raising objections. The Critical Thinking text book by Richard L. Esptein explains raising objections as the standard way to show an argument is bad. Esptein then goes into further detain about refuting arguments, he explains there are two ways to refute an argument which are a direct and indirect way. The direct way is by clearly showing there one of the premises are dubious, that argument is not valid, or the conclusion is false. The indirect way is by reducing to the absurd by using the argument to conclude an unwanted conclusion.  Then he gives examples of attempts to refute bad arguments and he gives phony refutation, slippery slope, and ridicule as an example. The one that interested me the most was ridicule because it is used much these days when people are being “sarcastic” or just plain mean. Ridicule is showing disagreement by making fun of the argument being presented.

week ( Oct. 2- Oct. 8)- q1t

In chapter six there is much to read about. The main idea of chapter six is what is the difference between valid and week conclusion from claims. The reading starts by giving a definition of what a compound claims are. A compound claim is two claims that make up one claim; every individual claim is called alternatives. It then proceeds to reason what a “or ”claim, conditional claims, valid & weak, chain claim and reasoning from hypothesis.

 The or claim is seen as false dilemma because it concludes from the claims. Ex:    A or B or C

                                                                                                                          Not A, not B

                                                                                                                                so C

the conditional claim is: If “A”, then “B”

while the contradictor of a conditional is : If “A” but not “B”

Other words are commonly used for “If” such Although, Even If, Despite that.

Under Valid & Weak there are 4 ways to reason. Two that are valid: If “A” then “B”   If “A” then “B”

                                                                                                         A                      not  B

                                                                                                      So B                    not A

Two weak:                                          If “A” then “B”                                          If “A” then “B”

                                                                       B                                                         not  A  

                                                                    So A                                                      not B

No matter what: If A then B

                         If not A, then B

                             So B

Reasoning from hypothesis is assuming something is true and building an argument from that. While the argument can only be valid if the hypothesis is proven to be correct.  

week ( Oct. 2- Oct. 8)- q3 concept

The concept that caught my attention this week was refuting indirectly. In Critical Thinking text book by Richard  L. Epstein  it explains that a person can refute indirectly by reducing to the absurd. Reducing the absurd is “to show that at least one of the several claims is false or dubious, or collectively they are unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them” (150). In other words, it means that a new conclusion is made from the same claims to show that that at least one of the claims is wrong. For example, a type of reducing to absurd is called refuting by analogy, which is showing their conclusion false by pointing out that same argument could be done for multiple subject that do not make sense.

For instance, I could argue that recycling one plastic bottle would make no difference because there are billions out there not being recycled. A refuting analogy could say, sure recycling one plastic bottle makes no difference just like  turning the light off in an empty room and the water facet when not being used.

That points out that the conclusion to not recycling one plastic bottle because it makes no difference is absurd.    

week ( sept. 25- oct. 1)- q2

While browsing online I found this advertisement about custom-tailored suits. When looking at the image it may be hard understanding what they are advertising but after reading the bold white letters with the black back ground it is easy to follow their point. They are trying to get advertise and persuaded the public to buy custom tailored suits. The argument they present can be evaluated with the sections A & B from The Critical Thinking text book by Richard L. Epstein.  To evaluate this advertisement I first need to accept or decline their claim, which is that “a custom-tailored suit is a natural aphrodisiac.” Furthermore, I need to use my personal experience to help me decide since according to Epstein “our most reliable source of information about the world is our own experience” (84). I personally think that men in suits are very attractive so that makes me accept the claim. I can then look into their logo and find out that they are a company that specializes in custom tailored suits and they had their business for a few years which gives them an authority to say that custom tailored suits can be aphrodisiac. Accepting their authority helps to the belief that “a custom-tailored suit is a natural aphrodisiac.”

week ( sept. 25- oct. 1)- q1

Arguments are easy to make but do they all make sense? No, some arguments seem to be missing a part to make them sound right or rational. For example, my brother has been waiting a husky and he is been trying convince my parents it’s a good idea to have one.

 His argument is, “Huskies are big. Huskies are full of energy. Huskies are protective. So a husky would keep the house safe.”

My parents asked, “So how can that guarantee the husky will keep the house safe?”

My brother’s argument is incomplete. In the book Critical thinking by Richard L. Epstein it explains how to repair an argument. Epstein says the guide to repairing an argument is to add a premises or conclusion to fulfill “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” (62). To make repair my brother argument he would need to add that since huskies are big, full of energy, and protective it would keep any unwanted visitors out, therefore, keeping the house safe. The only thing my parents see when they think of a huskie is a huge dog running inside the house.

week ( sept. 25- oct. 1)- q3 concept

Mistaking the Person for the Argument

A topic that I found very interesting and useful is “mistaking the person for the argument”. Mistaking the person for the argument according to Critical Thinking by Richard L. Epstein is “a mistake to reject an argument solely because of who said it” (98). The definition means that the argument is completely ignored just because of the person or group that said that argument. The complication with that is the argument is being placed a side not because it is good or bad but just because of who is saying it and it is not fair. The person saying the argument should not have an effect on the argument, the argument should be judged for itself. For example, at my job we are fundraising money for our local hospital for the children’s miracle network once I had this respond after asking,

-       “Would you like to donate a dollar to Salinas Memorial Hospital for the Children’s Miracle Network?”

-       They say “No, do you know the money is kept by the corporations and not given to the hospitals? “

The customer is making an argument that money should not be donated to me because I represent a corporation that is going to keep the money. The truth is that the corporation I work for actually matches what we fundraise and donates as well.  But that person t is just ignoring my claim to donate money because I represent a corporation.  

week 3 (sept. 11-17) - q2

Slippery Slope

Fallacies are bad arguments that cannot be repaired. There are there types of fallacies which are Structural, Content, and Violating the Principle of rational discussion. When looking under Content fallacies there you can find slippery slope. Slippery slope is when reasoning happens to where the conclusion is false. For Example, the argument starts with a claim that is true but exaggerates jumping to a not related/possible conclusion.  When people say : “Do not be nice to strangers people! If you do, they kill you” or “If the government helps the poor. Then the poor, will use all the government’s money,” they are making conclusions that are not supported and are an extreme from the claim. When people make either claim about people using all the governments money for just helping the poor they are jumping to extremes about a simple help to a group. Also, when people say that being nice to strangers will get you kill is a slippery slope because they there is no support that all strangers kill you. 

week 3 (sept. 11-17) - q1

Complex Argument Analysis

“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  claims would be 2, 3 and 4 .

Conclusion: the conclusion would be 5.

Additional premises needed? The additional premises would be a person is that heavy traffic make makes a person drive very slowly. Since a person is in a time restrain to get to class but they are running late with traffic they will not get to class in time.

Identify any sub-argument: 1, 2, and 3 are independent and support 4. Then 4 supports the conclusion, 5.

Good argument? Yes

This exercise was help because it helps to analyze a simple argument a person would have verses a long argument they would present when trying to argue.  This is helps to connect claims that are independent to the claim that supports the conclusion. By seeing their reasoning in a ways that is broken down as such: because, because, because, then therefore it makes it simple to understand the claims and conclusion. 

week 3 (sept. 11-17) - concept

Negotiate Effectively

Negotiations are bargains reached by two or more parties that are needed to communicate in all areas. An effective negotiation is not done not placing goals to high that can discourage any type of negotiation. Negotiations are normally helped by a compromise or help reach a compromise. A compromise could be seen as the agreement the parties reach that pleases them both the most. A compromise could be reached by supporting your position and brainstorming the agreement and suggesting other solutions. Being able to have an effective negotiation according to The Essential Guide to Group Communication, means following five easy strategies such the parties must place a side their emotions, have an open mind, listen, understand the other parties perspective, and being introspective (66). For example, my sister is 14 meaning that she still has to ask for permission when she wants to go out to the movie the first time she made plans to go out to the movies with her friends she failed to inform my parents of her plans until last minutes forcing my parents deny her permission. After that my sister was angry at them so my parents and my sister talk/argued that day until my parents and her agreed she was not able to go out that day but in the future she would be able to go out to the movies with her friends as long as she informed them of the basic plans days n advance, who would be going, the time and day. The negotiation was effective only because my parents and sister where able keep an open mind, keep cool and reach a solution they both agreed on (compromise). 

week 2-q1

Strong or Valid Argument Test

The test an argument should pass to be good is according to the Critical Thinking book  in page 42:

• o    the premises are plausible
• o    the premise are more plausible than the conclusion
• o    the argument is valid or strong

The test helps by making sure an argument has reasonable claim. Then it asks for the claim to be more reasonable than the conclusion. Then it asks for an argument that is valid or strong. If an argument is valid the premises must be true as well as the conclusion. While for a strong argument a argument most be invalid but very likely to be true.

For an example:

I can make the argument that…

My dog is 10 years olds.

10 year old dogs move slowly.

So my dog moves slowly.

My premises is true and my conclusion does follow the premises but there is some possibility the conclusion could be false. Therefore my argument is a strong argument. While the claim that all dogs 10 year old move slowly could be questioned. It is unlikely that 10 year old dogs moves quickly since they are old and tired.

week 2-q2

Strong vs. Valid arguments

Valid argument is when there is no way that the premises is true and the conclusion false versus a strong argument is when there is some possibility the premises is true and the conclusion false. A valid argument is defined by a premise that is followed by a conclusion in comparison to a strong or weak argument. For a strong argument the conclusion is invalid since there is some possibility the conclusion could be false. Since there are different degrees of a strong argument it is normally placed on a scale (strong to weak), the difference between a stron and weak argument is the possibility the conclusion is true to the premises. The conclusion must follow the premises to make a strong or valid argument but the conclusion is either valid or invalid making it a valid or strong/weak argument.

A valid argument would be: The earth orbits the sun. So the earth is part of the solar system.

While a strong argument would be: My brother’s room has been light blue for the past 2 years. Today when I went into my brother’s room, his room was green. So my brother must have painted his room.

week 2-concept

Time Pressures

Time pressures in groups’ causes an effect on decision making by interrupting the planning and affecting the leadership skills used. The best way to avoid time pressures is to manage time wisely. In The Group Communication book it states that 1/3 of the time spent in a meeting is used unproductively and that only 3 out of 4 meetings fail to finish on schedule (43-44). While meeting time is not used correctly and productively there are ways to use leadership skills to correct the problem, by taking a nonbinding poll, restricting discussion time, or by not making a decision. A nonbinding poll results in restricting the topics that will be discussed since it shows the places a group is either interested or the topics they already agree on. Restricting time to discuss a topic forces the group members to discuss the topic in a timely manner, by either restricting the floor time of each group member to the discussion or by restricting the discussion time for each topic. Not making a decision can be a better settlement than making wrong decision because of time pressures. The example used in The Group Communication book is of a group given 5 minutes to move from first platform to the 2^nd and 3^rd platform using 2 wooden planks; since the time was so small a person took leadership and informed all group members of the “plan”. The plain fail and for the second try they were given unlimited time and completed the task in 12 minutes (44). The example enforces the idea that making a decision because of time pressure is worse than not making one at all since one person taking control over the situation leaded to a fail in the task. Time pressures in groups should be avoided if trying to complete a task to satisfaction 

week 1c

Communication apprehension is when an individual gets scared or worried about communicating with other people. Communication apprehension seems to have an effect to how well a person does in class or over all in school. In the book the small Group Communication used for class, it says that communication apprehension affects 20 percent of the population (13). When transferring that percentage to numbers it makes it clear that apprehension affects about 20 out 100 people. I can personally say that when I was a child I was very apprehensive about communicating with new people. When growing up children are normally kept with a few of their classmates if not most for the next school year meaning that children are used to those student and are not so apprehensive until they are moved from elementary to Junior high or from Junior high to High school. When I reach college I left the comfort of my high school classmates. As the first college semester started I was scared about having to communicate with other people, as the semester continued I learned to control such the anxiety. When a person lets their anxiety or fear control their communication skill they are not liked by others since they do not contribute to group discussions or society. The main focus with communication apprehension is that it can affect how well a person does in school or liife and makes a person look socially awkward but the apprehension should be controlled by the individual.

week 1b

Being a vague means that the person is not being specific enough to understand what they are talking about. A vague sentence refers to that idea of a sentence being open for interpretation. A vague sentence can be read and mean many things. An ambiguous sentence is vague but is limited in interpretation to just a few options. An ambiguous sentence mostly inner changes the meaning such this Wednesday when I was fixing my room and I asked my friend for a hand and she said “sure but I am not sure how my hand is going to help.” She knew what I was talking about but she pointed out how ambiguous my sentence was. Most of the time people are ambiguous because the meaning of words can be interchange. I personally think that most commercials are ambiguous such Trojan condom commercial when they say “you just can’t wait to get it on” because they can be referring to using the condom itself or actual the fact that the people want to have sex. 

week 1a

An objective claim and subjective claim seem to be evolve around the idea of being true or false. An objective claim can be proven true or false since it is factual matter. In other words, the claim is based on facts of something that can be proven true or false, such the phrase: My closet is the smallest of the world. The truth is that her statement can be proven false by looking at the world’s records for the smallest closet. That statement was done by my friend who complaints she cannot fit any more clothes in her closet. On the other hand a subjective claim is a personal statement that cannot be proven true or false. A subjective claim expresses someone’s feelings, beliefs, and mostly they are just opinions that cannot be proven true or false. When I say that, Dogs are better than cats, it cannot be proven true or false but it could be moved around to say, Cats are better than dogs. The idea is that neither statement is ever true or false.

Introductory Post

Hi! I have never taken an online class so I am not sure how this works. I have never had a blog in my life and I am looking forward to knowing how this will turn out. I can be a very shy person but that has never stopped me from finding my way. My major is biology with microbiology as the concentration. After this semester i will complete 3 years in San Jose State. I took a semester break from school two springs ago after losing interest in school. After not doing much for about 6 months, I had the need to return to school. I have also recently decided I want a motorcycle.