further discussion?

I felt that the concept of general claims could be further discussed a little more. Since it’s such a broad topic, and the book and some sites involved in explaining general claims can only do so much, learning it on my own was a challenge. It took me a little longer to grasp the concept of using general claims, as well as identifying general claims, more than it did with the other concepts that we learned. It was probably because I based it more on what was said in the book rather than outside sources. The book didn’t do such a great job in explaining it. I felt that it was just going in circles with its explanations in that chapter. I was more confused than enlightened, that’s for sure. I think what got me to understand the concept more was reading other peoples’ entries on the subject. But I did have to wait until someone posted their entry on the concept before I wrote mine. X]

It’s funny. The one concept that got me confused is the one concept that I found the most fascinating.

favorite? least favorite? improvement?

My favorite thing about this class was that it was at a learn-at-your-own-pace basis. I’ve taken online classes before, and I felt that when I took that one I felt pressured to be on top of all lectures, then come into take a final every 3 weeks or so. This class, however, felt a lot more eased than the online class I took before. It’s probably because I enjoy writing more than I like being lectured on a subject.

My least favorite thing about this class would have to be the time limit that’s given for quizzes and exams, but more specifically the quizzes. I felt that 35 minutes isn’t enough. I like to take my time when it comes to answering questions, then be able to go back and check all my answers before submitting. I know a handful of people who like to do this as well, but if a time limit is given, it makes them feel a little too pressured to just finish, rather than do their best on a quiz or exam. Maybe DO have a time limit, BUT make it at least an hour and fifteen minutes for quizzes and exams. That’d help out a lot.

The only thing I would change to improve this class is the time limits on exams and quizzes, because of the reasons above. Overall, I enjoyed this class. It was definitely an experience blogging for a grade. haha :)

what i learned this semester is...

I learned a few things this semester while taking this class. Overall, I learned how to be more specific when it comes to coming up with arguments. Not only that, but to also be careful of giving fallacious arguments. These were two things that had the biggest impact on me this entire semester because it was something I’ve grown used to doing for all the years I’ve been writing (and talking too, I suppose). I like that fact that I will be able to call out people that use words such as, “a lot” and “all” in their statements though. I’ll be able to ask them, “So did you really mean every single one of them did it? Or are you simply saying ‘a lot’ because it’s easier to describe? If that’s the case, then did you know your claim is considered vague in an argumentative standpoint? No? Oh, well now you know.” I was so fascinated by this chapter about general claims because people unintentionally use “a lot” in their statements, but they don’t know it makes their statements/claims weaker and vague, rather than strong and straightforward.

tracing the cause.

Tracing the cause of an argument backwards seemed interesting. It’s basically all about back tracking your steps in order to figure out what caused the result to occur. But it gets to a point where the possibilities of the cause are endless. The reason why is because “as we trace the cause back further it becomes too hard to fill in the normal conditions.”

The show Doctor Who does this all the time. You have to constantly watch and re-watch episodes in order to figure out what is really going on, or else you’ll be left confused by what the current episode is about. It’s obnoxious and it gets really confusing because what the writers of the show do is that they’d play a current episode from the current season, and then it will somehow relate to another episode that was done 3-4 seasons ago. However, it is really fun to do. It shows how much you pay attention to the series and how creative you are. You’re constantly asking yourself, “What if what this character did had something to do with what happened in that one episode?” Overall, it definitely does keep me thinking of all the possibilities. Sometimes I do go overboard on theories and possibilities, and now I know that it’ll become too difficult to be a normal cause and effect argument.

Someone tell this to the writers of Doctor Who! They’re basically making their viewers think harder than they normally should. Oh well. I’d watch the show either way. X]

mission critical

The Mission Critical website was also a very helpful source because it had pretty much everything that was covered so far. I specifically paid attention to the “Emotional Appeals” section, since it grabbed my attention the most. (It’s probably my favorite section we learned about so far.) I liked how the website pretty much used the same example for each emotional appeal and made it work for each one. I laughed so hard when I read the example that said, “Gosh, officer, but if you even think about giving me a ticket, I’m going to shoot you with this gun.”

For sure, these examples can’t really relate to everyone, but they are definitely humorous to an extent. I certainly enjoyed reading through all the different examples.

Comparing this to the textbook, I have to give it to the textbook when it comes to explanations. I’m not sure if it’s because all the information seems to be squished on the website, but the book’s simplistic definitions were enough for me to understand THIS particular concept. Although I’m not saying the website is less effective. The website can be another outside source in learning about all the different concepts.

Guess it just goes to show you that there isn’t one source for everything. You have to do some hardcore digging to learn the concepts and all that jazz.

cause/effect website.

This website definitely furthered my understanding of causal arguments. It goes into a lot of detail on what it is and provides examples of it being played out. I specifically really liked the exercises that were provided after reading about cause/effect. It was easy to understand. Can I say it was a lot easier to understand the textbook? Because I felt that the book was being a bit too casual with the subject. It’s nice that the textbook wants to connect with us as its readers, but only giving the minimal in formation isn’t helpful at all. It would be surprising if I could fully understand the concept on the first reading. In reality, it takes me at least two times of reading through the book PLUS getting information from another source to help me understand the given concept.

The website, on the other hand, gave more explanation and made it easy to understand. It only took me one time to read through to understand. Even though it wasn’t really being casual with its approach, the main point is that I could understand the concept. Totally recommend this website to use! :)

judging analogies

Judging analogies is important. We can’t just say that one side of an argument is better than they other isn’t really helpful. The analogy should be balanced on both sides, rather than being leaned towards one.

Actors and actresses are allowed to have tattoos while they work on television and movies. People with tattoos should be allowed to work as doctors and nurses without being judged.

First off, how is acting on a television show or movie even similar to being a doctor or a nurse?

The integrity of being a doctor or a nurse is far more important than expressing what’s on your body. The profession isn’t a fashion show. Plus, you wouldn’t want to scare patients with your inked out body. Seriously, if you’re dealing with a scared patient, you don’t want them to be even more scared.

Actors and actresses are allowed tattoos while on television shows and movies because they have make-up artists to cover them up every single day when they film something.

The integrity of the actor/actress is mostly based on looks too.

If they were to come in contact with other people, those people wouldn’t be scared of the tattoos. Rather, they would admire them for expressing their feelings through their tattoos, and would probably convince those people to get one too.

Therefore, since doctors and nurses come in everyday contact with people, they shouldn’t be tattooed.

difficulty in reasoning.

Most difficult? I’d say reasoning by analogy was the most difficult for me to understand. I had to read through the definition of it on Wiki a few times and read other peoples’ entries on it to get the gist of it. What I learned from reading other peoples’ entries on this is that it’s comparing two things and both of them have to have the same conclusion in order for it to be considered an analogy. I think it was difficult to understand because I couldn’t really find a straightforward example on it. Not only that, but I couldn’t really think of one to write about at the time. After one night of letting all the info about it sink in, I think I got it down.

One example I came up with to help me understand this concept was this:

Music is said to be an amazing stress reliever. If all students learn how to play an instrument, they’ll be less stressed out about whatever is in their lives.

Music is a stress reliever. Students are stressed beyond their limits. You put these two things together and you have a positive outcome.

reasoning.

Reason by analogy: comparison becomes this when it’s part of an argument. One side of the comparison we draw a conclusion, and the other side should conclude the same.

• The arts decrease the chances of kids dropping out of high school. Therefore, the arts should be implemented in high schools and not dropped.

Sign Reasoning: two things are closely related to each other, the presence or absence of one means the presence/absence of the other

• Where there’s facebook, there’s status updates. (c’mon, we’ve ALL updated our status at least once on that darn site.)

Causal Reasoning: we have good reason to believe that events of one sort are systematically related to events of some other sort.

• I procrastinate studying for an exam. I take the exam, and find the questions to be extremely difficult. I get the results back and get a bad grade.

Reasoning by criteria: define criteria on what is being judged, then identifying the best decision out of the bunch.

• Playing Angry Birds on your phone all day will make you extremely distracted. Delete that app and you’ll be less distracted.

Reasoning by example: use of examples in an argument

• "You wanna be a starship ranger? Discover worlds far and near? Who gives a care about starship rangers! The greatest life to live is found right here!" -"I Wanna Be (A Starship Ranger)" by Darren Criss
  

(These are song lyrics, by the way. The lyrics are basically a metaphor for asking why should you go out and be something that is out of the ordinary when you can live your life just fine being ordinary? Lovely song, by the way. Check it out if you're interested.)

Inductive: using other observations that were made previously to reason.

• Steppie’s Etsy shop always delivers their products quickly. I bought from them before, so buying from them again, I’ll get the same result.

Deductive: conclusion of an argument has to be true if the premises are true

• All pop songs have the same 4 chords: C, G, Am, F. “Last Friday Night (TGIF)” by Katy Perry is considered a pop song. Therefore, this song must have those chords in it.

(Yeah, this song DOES have these chords. Pretty fun song to play on the guitar and sing.)

fear.

Appeal to fear, in the general definition, was really interesting. Like I said in Monday’s post, it’s used in television all the time. If you can strike fear into someone’s heart, it’s pretty easy to convince them to do something.

Like all my references, I’ll talk about Glee. In the episode entitled, “Asian F,” Mike gets an A- on a chemistry exam. His father takes him to the principal’s office and raises his concern about his son’s drastic grade drop. His dad lists a number of things that could have contributed to this. From the possibility of doing drugs (which ISN’T true) to having a girlfriend, he dubbed these all distractions. He then forces Mike to quit the Glee club because he thinks it’s a waste of his time. Of course, Mike didn’t want to quit the club, so he compromises with his dad that he’ll do better, and that he’ll even hire a tutor to help him with his chemistry.

Mike’s dad used appeal to fear in the hope that his son will do better in this class. I actually have no idea if he DOES do better, but I think he does. In the TV world, anything is possible. When I think of Mike’s character, I think he does do better somehow in this class.

polish your apples.

Apple Polishing is making something look better than it really is. Photojojo.com uses apple polishing when advertising the products that they sell on their site. Even though I absolutely love what they sell, I can’t help but agree that they use this type of fallacious argument to sell their products.

There was this one time where I bought “The Strap Buddy” off their website. The advertisement appeared to make it look like this shiny device that you attach to your camera and it would make it easier to carry around your neck, and it would comfortably sit at your hip. When I got it in the mail, it was just this dinky little piece of metal that wasn’t shiny at all. Also, when I put it on my camera that I use for shooting concerts, it just made my strap twice as tangled than it used to. On top of that, it was very uncomfortable when I put my camera by my hip.

I do not believe that this is a good argument. Its description on the website glorifies this little device and has no sort of negativity towards purchasing it. Although it does have an unstated premise that the buyer may want to have a comfier way to carry their cameras, rather than having it around their neck all the time. From my experience, I believed in this premise. I just felt that after buying it, that is wasn’t all that was meant to be.

appeal to emotion.

Appeal to Emotion is a statement in which you believe in because it makes you feel like a certain emotion. Although that statement may not be true, your emotions make you believe it is. If you read a lot of my posts, they’re based off of television shows. TV is one of the prime examples of using appeal to emotion.

The type of appeal to emotion that struck me the most was the one where you find that fear is a good thing. I see fear used in advertisements all the time, which is why it strikes me as interesting. I won’t actually use an advertisement, but I’ll use a scene in a musical I watched.

In the Youtube musical A Very Potter Sequel, there’s a scene where Harry, Ron, Draco, and Hermione are faced with Peter Pettigrew, the traitor best friend of Harry’s dad. Just when they thought they killed him, he comes back to life and tries to kill the kids. Just then, Ron pulls out his signature prop in the show: Red Vines. He asks Peter, “Wouldn’t killing us would tasted better with a Red Vine?” Peter agrees and tries to grab the Red Vine from Ron, but then Ron does the “Stupefy” spell on him with the Red Vine, and Peter goes flying across the stage. When this happens, Ron faces the audience and says, “Red Vines: What the hell CAN’T they do?”

Despite this confusing notion of Red Vines being a universal tool that could help ward off killers, this is an example of appeal to emotion when it comes to fear being a good thing. Harry, Ron, Draco, and Hermione were stuck in a situation between life and death. Ron pulls out his pack of Red Vines and somehow kills off Peter Pettigrew. If it weren’t for those Red Vines, they would have been killed.

Red Vines can't float on water. That's one thing that it can't do. If you're wondering. ;P

statistics.

I found the “Precise generalities” section of chapter 8 fairly interesting. It was basically stating that it’s not always true when someone uses statistics in a claim. Like stating, “85% of all statistics are made up on the spot.” How are we suppose to trust this? We unconsciously use numbers to describe situations because sometimes it’s just easier to do so. Even though it may be easier, it’s most definitely not strong at an argument’s standpoint. Although, if the statistic is very high or very low, the book states that we can assume it’s a strong argument.

I’ll talk about a general thing I see on campus everyday. If I say “2 out of the thousands of students at SJSU have a bag that’s NOT Jansport, Northface, or Chrome.” You’d be able to trust this statistic because it’s a significantly low statistic, and assuming you’re not as observant as I am and know nothing more about the subject, this statistic could be taken seriously as a real generality.

I have no idea how I know about these things. I guess I’m naturally just a keen observer when it comes to brands in general. Haha Maybe I'm just isolated to one side of the campus, and it so happens that the side of the campus I'm always on, people have those brand of bags. Whatever. x]

second assignment > first assignment

I found the second assignment a bit more useful than the first. It was definitely a lot more in depth, and it felt like I could relate to it a lot more than the first one. Specifically speaking, I felt that identifying fallacies and appeal to emotion fallacies was the most useful. I never really got the hang of all the fallacies, but after this one I understood the concept of a few of the fallacies even more. Since the organization that my group chose was PETA, it was a given that there would be fallacies contained in their information. In fact, it even introduced me to fallacies that weren’t even described in the book. (Thank goodness for Google, right?)

The second assignment also brightened my horizons on whether or not I should trust social organizations I hear about everyday. Even if some celebrities endorse certain organizations, like PETA, and I so happen to adore the living daylights out of the certain celebrity (ie Lea Michele supporting PETA), I can’t fully trust the organization unless there is some reason to believe their statements and claims are false. Also, if I can’t really judge whether or not to trust an organization’s claims, I can always suspend judgment about it until I get more information about it.

general claims: "all"

One concept that I found useful in Ch. 8 were the certain words that could be used in general claims. In particular, I could relate to using the word “all” the most.

In the book, it states that “all” means, “every single one, no exceptions” Although using this word can lead to contradictions in statements.

“All Filipinos are talented. You’re Filipino. So you must be talented.”

This is a statement I hear all the time, especially from all my non-Filipino friends. When I tell them I play guitar, ukulele, piano, and can sing, they automatically stereotype every Filipino to be talented. It may be valid, but it’s not strong. Not every Filipino knows how to do these things. It just so happens that I’m Filipino, and I just grew up in a musical family. (And I learned how to do these things because I was bored and needed something to do.) In other words, “all” in this statement is extremely ambiguous.

If you were to use the word “all” in a claim, it has to be specific.

Sitting in my Environmental Studies classroom, waiting for my class to start, I see a sign on the white board stating, “…ALL windows are closed and latched.”

This is how the word “all” should be used in a claim. It’s specific and cannot be ambiguous in any sense. All the windows in this particular classroom are closed and latched at the moment, if you’re wondering.

;P

false dilemma.

I found that the section about “False dilemmas” in Chapter 6 was very interesting. We indirectly use false dilemmas all the time, especially when it comes to ending an argument. In the book, it states that a false dilemma is “a bad use of excluding possibilities where the “or” claim is false or implausible.”

Usually, these claims are taken to the extreme in order for people to choose “which side.” As I’m typing this, I’m watching the newest episode of Glee. It got to a scene where Kurt, who is running for class president, runs into Brittany, the dumb blonde cheerleader who is running against him. She says to Rachel, who is with Kurt at the time, something along the lines of “You either vote for this guy, who will plummet the school down even more, or you can vote for me, who can run this school even better.” Brittany is basically making Rachel choose between Kurt or her in this presidential race of their high school.

Yay weekend!!! :D

counterarguments.

One thing I learned in this chapter was about refuting arguments. In other words, proving that an argument is WRONG. One way you can prove that an argument is wrong is doing it directly. Every time I’m with my dad, he always tells me that my favorite show of all time, Glee, is horrible. He tells me a bunch of things like, the actors are too old to portray high school students (1), they use too controversial story lines that kids should not watch (2), and their music sounds like it’s been overdosed on auto-tune (3). Therefore, he thinks I shouldn’t watch it. I can’t let this pass because I HAVE to defend my favorite show.

The book states that there are 3 ways to prove an argument wrong in the direct way:

“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”

I can say that the first premise is dubious because his views of how high school students look is different from my point of view and perspective. The argument isn’t strong or valid. The conclusion could be made false because of the ambiguity of the premises.

You can also prove and argument wrong indirectly. This is when you “can’t point to any one premise that is false or dubious, but you know there’s something wrong with the premises.”

Referring to the example above, my dad is saying that I shouldn’t watch the show Glee because of the premises he mentioned. He complains the cast is too old to portray high school students. There are a lot of other shows I can name that have an even older looking cast portraying high school students. Plus, how is it that the creators and casting directors will be able to find people who are cooperative enough to work 14 hours shifts every single week? Certainly not any 15-18 year old, that’s for sure. In that age group, people are bound to complain of tiredness. On top of that, they would still need to complete some sort of high school education. If they have to do that, their recording schedules will be completely messed up. Therefore, they use OLDER actors and actresses to portray high school students because this would stir away from these problems.

All in all, this premise is a pretty absurd way of arguing that a show shouldn’t be watched. Sorry, I just love Glee a lot. :3

compound claims.

Compound claims are talked about in this chapter. There are certain words that can make a certain statement a “compound claim.” For example, “I will write my blog entries at school OR I will do it at home.” There are two statements connected by the word, “or” which makes them a compound claim.

Using the word, “or” is just one way you can form a compound claim. There are also other kinds of claims discussed in this chapter. The second type of claim discussed in this chapter is, “contradictory of a claim.” It states that it has “the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances.”

“Either the Doctor goes back to save Amy, or Amy will be stuck in a parallel dimension forever and ever, and never see the Doctor again.”

The “negation” for this would be, “The Doctor won’t go back to save Amy, and Amy will see the Doctor again.”

For every statement in the claim, there will always be a “negation.”

(This is such an open-ended question this week, isn’t it?) It’s alright, I like it. :)

bad appeal to authority.

"Bad appeal to authority" seems like a fancy term for peer pressure. When you hear the phrase, “Come on, everyone is doing it,” it's a common "bad appeal to authority" case. We tend to believe in our friends because we can trust them. Although this really shouldn’t be the case because they may know what they’re talking about, but they could just be acting. People should keep in mind that unless there’s other evidence to show that what they are saying is true, you shouldn’t believe in it.

Actors and actresses on our favorite television shows and movies are perfect examples of this. We tend to believe in what they are doing is truly them because they are so confident in it. In reality, they’re just acting out a character. Most of the time, the character they are portraying is far from what they are in real life. It happens to me all the time. Whenever I watch GLEE, I always think that the actor playing Artie (a character who’s wheelchair bound) can’t walk. But after seeing dozens of interviews and seeing him in real life perform, I know he can walk. There’s no further proof to believe that he can’t walk, other than a tv show character. He's really convincing though...

advertisements.

The advertisement that I chose is for TOMs eyewear. It’s a fairly new product from the company, and like its shoes, if you buy a pair, it will provide a pair of glasses to people in need.

From personal experience, I can trust this ad because it’s a company that I’m familiar with. Also, they have been around for a few years. Although I don’t really know if they do really give back. I can only find so many pictures of the company actually giving a pair of shoes or a pair of glasses to needy people.

From this ad alone, it’s really difficult to judge whether or not this is a reliable ad. It features two Caucasian people wearing the kind of glasses this company sells, but it doesn’t really show that they are the type of people to give back. They look like they’re fairly wealthy from what they are wearing. It is a bit misleading because, if I’m not mistaken, it’s suppose to represent everyday people being able to wear and purchase this product. Yet, the clothes that they are wearing in this ad are far from everyday wear. I don’t know anyone that dresses this fancy.

Overall, the ad is very subtle, using little text. I guess this company is going by the saying, "A picture's worth a thousand words."

argument repair.

"AJ writes scripts for television shows. So AJ must be good at writing."

You can already tell by just reading this argument that it’s weak. You can try adding an additional premise stating, “He graduated with a degree in Media” to repair the argument, but that wouldn’t really make any difference. He may have graduated from it, but that doesn’t really “glue” the premise to the conclusion. Also, you can’t really believe in the conclusion. It’s pretty dubious. Is he good at casual writing? How about formal writing? There are a lot of different possibilities for this particular statement. Not only that, but the premise is also very ambiguous. How do we know if the television show he’s writing for is actually doing well, screenplay-wise?

Although, you can make this a valid argument by adding, “Currently, he writes for the television show Modern Family.” This way, the premise and the conclusion are glued, which can make the argument good.

Overall, I think this is a pretty weak argument.

Technologic....technologic.

The “Master Communication Technology” section of “The Essential Guide to Group Communication” struck my attention this week. Technology has been one of the key components to a successful organization, especially now. Take our cell phones, for example. Only a few years ago, we couldn’t even get Internet on our phones, and if we did it was ridiculously slow (and the graphics were terrible!). Now, it seems that every cell phone has the capability to connect to the Internet wherever you go. You can basically work through your cell phone if your organization allows it.

Although with technology moving faster than ever, it does have its hindrances for people when it comes to communication. We’ve gone from pagers to the internet within a short amount of time. However, one must learn how to “maximize and enhance communication skills” when it comes to all this technology. In other words, use it to the best of your ability.

It’s crazy to see how far technology has come when it comes to communication. A simple “hello” to someone far away used to take so long, but now with the internet a simple message like that takes seconds. It’s no wonder that organizations like to use networking sites like Twitter and Facebook to connect to its employees. Since they know almost everyone uses them for leisure, having a page for their organization allows them to get messages out quicker than a mass email. These organizations have indeed “maximized and enhanced communication skills” with the usage of the Internet.

As for me, majority of the people I know already know that I use technology for almost every interaction. Since I know the Internet is readily available for me wherever I go, I use it to communicate. I’m in front of a computer and have my phone on most of my day anyway, so why would I not use the Internet on both devices? Basically if it’s ready to use, I’ll use it, especially when it comes to communication.

Appeal to Emotion Fallacy.

It is said in the Epstein textbook that a lot of arguments are considered bad because “they use or require for repair a false or dubious (doubtful) premise (assumption).”

The "appeal to emotion" fallacy uses psychology to make you believe something is true. We see this all the time, especially in television. They say things like, “Buy this product! It’ll make you feel amazing!!” Almost every single commercial is using an “appeal to emotion” fallacy. Television shows use this as well.

In one episode of the Nickelodeon television series, Victorious, the character Trina tells her sister’s friends that she got her feet smoothened by “pukka fish” from Puerto Iguazu, all with no bad consequences, and you get your feet feeling as “smooth as a baby’s butt.” Of course, who wouldn’t want their thick skin on their foot to be smooth, right?

Her sister’s friends tried it, and they seemed to be fine. They got their feet smoothened and gloated over it amongst their classmates. Unfortunately at the end of the episode, they find out that they are highly poisonous and the friends (including Trina) who got their feet smoothened by the fish caught a disease that attacked their central nervous system.

Not only that, but Trina admitted, “I bought illegal pukka fish from a guy in a van!” Meaning, she knew that it would have some side effects, but she didn’t say anything to anyone about it.

As funny as it was, it doesn’t deny the fact that Trina used an “appeal to emotion” fallacy. She appealed to her sister’s friends’ emotions in getting their feet feeling smoother than the average person, but she did not even bother telling them any other additional information that did not make them feel good. As long as she got them to do it as well, it seemed like that was all she cared about. (How mean!)

You have to give some love to Nickelodeon shows sometimes. They are educating you in so many ways. Sometimes you’re not even aware they’re educating you…

Structures of Arguments.

Las Vegas has too many people. (1)

-There’s not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people. (2)

-and the infrastructure of the city can’t handle more than a million (3)

-the streets are overcrowded (4)

-traffic is always congested (5)

-the schools are overcrowded, and new ones can’t be built fast enough (6)

we should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county. (7)

Argument? (Y/N)

Yes, it’s a valid argument.

Conclusion?

We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.

Additional premises needed?

I think if the argument were written in an “If/then” style, it would have been a bit more effective. At least, to my understanding it looks like a better way to put it.

“Las Vegas has too many people. IF there’s not enough water, as well as a stable infrastructure to support more than a million people, and traffic is always congested, THEN we should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.”

Identify any subargument?

Lines 2-6 are independent and support the conclusion. And the conclusion supports Line 1.

Good argument?

Sure, it’s a good and through argument to give. The original argument is a bit verbose, but I understand it all.

Las Vegas is crowded and it’s small. Cigarette smoke can be smelled everywhere you go, a lot of people from far and wide go around from casino to casino here. Above all it’s located in the desert. With its hot and humid weather year round, of course you would worry about Las Vegas having a lot of people because supplies could be drained out a lot quicker.

I thought that this exercise was somewhat useful. It's definitely a very through way of analyzing an argument. The textbook is really confusing to understand for this section though. The examples they provided didn't really help me out so much. Like, in the argument about Justice Warren's opinion, the explanation at the bottom about the person's answers just felt like it was rewriting everything over again. In other words, I felt that the book could have put more clarification into this section. Well, I needed more clarification.

Feel free to clarify more for me on how to analyze an argument like this.

Effective Leaders.

What I found interesting in Ch. 3 of The Essential Guide to Group Communication was the small section titled, “Effective Leadership.” The book says that an effective leader must be able to inspire and motivate members to attain their goal, which requires them to be verbal, as well as open through communication. There are 3 factors for effective leadership:

Brings about desirable outcomes

Enhances credibility with the group

Inspires/motivates group members to participate

This made me think of the leaders that I’ve had in the past. Did they really do a good job in leading a group?

Recently, I joined a choir group with a few of my friends from church. We were working on a performance for a few days, but we didn’t really have an established leader that would tell us what to do and what we should work on. Luckily, one person stepped in and started leading us.

This person told us that we should put on a performance that the audience would never forget, so we needed to work a lot harder in what we were doing.

This person was also a credible leader because they worked on performances like these in the past, so they knew what they were talking about.

Lastly, this person always motivated us to keep going in our work with the performance. Even if our rehearsals lasted late into the night, they continued to be extremely energetic, which bounced onto all of us who were sleepy and getting tired of the song we were rehearsing. I can definitely say that this person was an effective leader. When we performed that song, the audience was extremely pleased with what we did. Hopefully this person continues to be the leader of this group.

Have a good weekend, everyone!!! :D Go out and hug a puppy.

Strong/Valid.

An argument is strong when its conclusion is false, even though its premises are true. This classification of an argument is apart of a scale of invalid arguments, which ranges from strong to weak.

Example of a strong argument:

When I hang around my little cousins at parties, it seems that all of them watch the show iCarly.

All these kids range from ages 6-12, so obviously they watch networks like Nickelodeon, which plays iCarly.

So majority of the adult minds would believe that only kids that are these ages would watch iCarly.

This conclusion is definitely false, and makes the argument invalid. It is definitely likely that kids watch iCarly, and that the ages of the kids are 6-12. Although I know a lot of people who are my age (even older!) who watches and enjoys iCarly, and one of those people happens to be myself.

However, an argument is considered valid when there is no way the premises are true and the conclusion false.

Example of a valid argument:

I remember one assignment that I had to do for one class, but it was graded pass/fail.

I did the assignment and passed.

In conclusion, I didn’t fail.

There is a possibility that I could have either passed the assignment or failed it. Thankfully, I passed the assignment. The conclusion of this is true because I could have either went one way or the other.

Argument.

I'll have to admit, this was a really hard section to understand. So basically, there are 3 tests to see if an argument can be considered good.

1. The premise (assumption) is plausible (reasonable).
2. The premise has to be more plausible than the conclusion.
3. The argument is valid/strong.

All these tests are independent, so one can pass, while the others may fail. It also doesn't matter which test you start with.

Example of an argument:
Acoustic musicians, who are not signed with a major record label, stay true and passionate to their music that they play.
Musicians signed with a major record label lose that passion and conform to what the label wants.
Therefore, Youtube musicians are better musicians.

The first statement about acoustic musicians is plausible, and definitely more plausible than the conclusion. There are no limits when it comes to music, especially when it comes to acoustic music. When you watch someone perform acoustically, with just them and an instrument of their choice, you can definitely see their passion being poured out through the music that they play.

The argument is plausible as well, but it’s definitely weak. We wouldn’t know about what musicians who are signed to major record labels go through, unless you are one. There could be a lot of possibilities as to why they are the way they are under that label.

Although the conclusion can be valid, it is a bit weak.

There are a lot of different types of musicians on Youtube, ranging from acoustic, like Gabe Bondoc, to rap, like D-Pryde. Even though they’re on Youtube, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re signed to a major record label. They could be signed to a label, and they stay true and passionate to their music. (Although there are those musicians who we all like to call, “sell outs.”) In other words, this is a little too ambiguous.

Overall this is valid, but it’s a weak argument.

Apprehension.

What I found interesting in chapter 2 of the Essential Guide to Group Communication was the section titled, “Effects of Communication in Groups.” It lists a few findings of what can happen if there is apprehension in a group.

The writers were also able to back up this information with findings that communication researchers McCroskey and Richmond made when studying apprehension. They found that people with high apprehension are seen in negative ways, such as “being more nervous,” “being less task oriented and less socially attractive,” and “making less valuable contributions…” This section also stated, when compared to less apprehensive people, high apprehensive people are “less likely to have high grades in college, to be offered interviews…”

I’m generally “the quiet person“ whenever I’m in a group, but so far I haven’t experienced some of what was described, particularly having low grades. Even though I’m quiet, my grades haven’t suffered for it. And I will admit that I’m not the most sociable person amongst people, but they don’t treat me any differently than anyone else.

Actually, I find it a lot easier to work alone than in a group because it’s easier to get things done, rather than waiting for other people to finish before moving on to doing something else. Whenever I’m in a group, I would do all the work that is required, but I’ll admit that I rarely share what I do come up with. If I do, then it’s just a glimpse of what I did, rather than sharing in its entirety. That’s how it’s been for me for the past few years I’ve been at SJSU.

Although when it comes to being less able to lead, I can completely relate. I never really lead a group before, unless I’m asked to. There are those rare times when I do lead without being asked, but that would only happen if the group that I’m working with has done nothing to work with.

Since this is a communication class, I’m definitely going to work on my communication skills when working with groups.

Sorry this was such a long entry. This is what happens when you don’t talk that much. I make up for it in writing. haha :3

Vague...

What's a vague sentence?

A vague sentence is a sentence where there are many ways to interpret it. The only way you can see if the way you interpreted the sentence correctly is if the person saying the sentence elaborates on it more.

Where did I hear this sentence?

I blog everyday on another site (Tumblr, if you’re wondering), and I follow many different blogs as well. I come across a lot of different entries people make, and they are always filled with vague sentences. There are some instances where their entries are one sentence long!

There’s this particular blog that is devoted to a certain television show I love to watch (Doctor Who).

Yesterday, I decided to check out the blog again, to see if there were any spoilers for the newest episode coming out this week. I log in, and before scrolling endlessly, I read their top post. It read, “I have never felt this sad about anything in my life!”

What qualified the sentence as vague?

This is considered a vague sentence because I don’t know what the “anything” this person is referring to. Is this person referring to the show? A particular moment in one of the many episodes? Or are did they simply just take a break from watching and blogging about the show and is talking about their life? I took it as a statement about what’s happening in their life, but the statement will remain vague unless I ask the person to elaborate on what they said.

Hope this made sense. :3

Subjective/Objective

Subjective claims are basically your own opinion on a certain subject. It’s what you believe in, and sometimes it doesn’t have to be necessarily true for everyone.

One example of a subjective claim that I used recently is when I told a friend of mine that social networking is beneficial.

For myself, an avid user of many social networks, I say that social networking is beneficial, because I have went in more depth than a usual person does when on a social networking site. However, this may also not be necessarily true for the friend I said this to. They, on the other hand, do not use any social networking site, and said that there aren’t many benefits to it. All in all, everyone has their own preferences as to whether or not social networking is beneficial.

On the other hand, objective claims are statements, which are not bias in any way. Rather, it’s something that a person can say and is intended for everyone. A person who hears this statement would be able to physically see or point out that it's an objective claim. In simpler terms, an objective claim is the opposite of a subjective claim.

Giving directions to a person is an example of an objective claim. Just a few weeks ago, a friend of mine asked me how to start a blog. The way that I showed this person was just one way of doing it. Although there are many other possible ways that can be taken with this, the overall objective is making a blog. It will be the same result, no matter what.