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.”