Second Major Course Assignment

Out of the two assignments that we have worked on so far, I can definitely say that the second one was the most useful to me. Social organizations are quite common nowadays, and come in many different shapes, sizes, and all hold different purposes. This assignment really helped by allowing us to see what kind of questions we should be asking to really break down what a social organization is all about. My group for example did our paper on M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), which was really easy to go indepth with what they had to say after applying the questions the assignment asks us to answer. M.A.D.D. uses a lot of emotion to appeal because they are a group created by mothers who have lost loved ones due to drunk driving. Any loss, especially that of a loved one is very emotionally draining, and their stories are what drive the organization to do whatever they can to prevent drunk driving, especially in teens. Overall though, this assignment has made me much more aware of what social organizations can do to be more appealing to us.

What I Learned in Chapter 8

In chapter 8, I learned the exact definition of "some", which means "at least one" or "at least one, but not all." This really caught my attention because the examples they gave in the book showed just how vague using the word "some" is. The funny thing is, it is a word we all use frequently when we are unsure of our answer or if you want to be purposely vague. Take me for example, whenenver my Mom asks me if I've finished my homework, I'll simply reply, "Yeah, some of it..." To her, "some" means at least half, to me, its writing down the first sentence of my essay!


I also learned the direct way of reasoning with all.

All S are P
A is S
So A is P

Reasoning directly with all produces valid arguments, so its no wonder its something I frequently used myself, but didn't have a clear definition for, it was just something that I knew worked. For example, a discussion I had with my friend.

Jimmy: Hey is a 98 3-series rear-wheel drive?
Alan: Well, all BMWs up until recently are rear-wheel drive. That car is a 98 3-series, so I'm going to have to say yes, it is rear-wheel drive.

Contrapositives

A contrapositive is basically the equivalent to the original argument. The book uses "A" and "B" to explain this. "If A then B" and "If  not B then not A". It is a pretty concept overall and is something we run into all the time in our daily lives. Being able to identify the contrapositive sometime makes it easier to understand the original argument. It was kind of hard to grasps at first, but the example of getting a drivers licenses really cleared things up. That is, to be able to recieve a license, one must first pass the driving test. If you do not pass the driving test, then you do not have a license. As you can see, it is simply broken down using the "A" and "B". From this I was able to easily draw onto other examples such as "If the street light is green, you go" and "If you do not go then the light is not green".

What I Learned in Chapter 7

One thing I learned in chapter 7 is about raising objections. Raising objections is a great way to show that an argument is bad because it can show one of the claims to be dubious, it can show you directly why the argument is weak, or questions one of the premises of the original argument. Here's an example:

Bob: Let's go visit Mom and Dad in San Diego!
Kevin: It's too far...
Bob: We could take a plane!
Kevin: It's to expensive..
Bob: I'll pay for it then!
Kevin: Then we won't be able to afford rent when we get back...

I also learned three ways to refute an argument directly. One way is to point out that one or more of the premises are dubious. Another simple way that we have already learned is to show that the argument is valid or strong. The last way is pretty straight forward because all you have to do it prove that the conclusion is false. 

What I Learned In Chapter 6

One thing I learned in chapter 6 is the contradictory of a claim, which is a claim that, in any circumstance, will end up being entirely opposite of the original claim. I didn't know there was an official term that signified opposite claims, but it is a pretty easy concept to grasp. Here are some examples:

Bob is sleeping --- Bob is not sleeping

Bob will go for a run later --- Bob will not go for a run later

Another thing I learned about in chapter 6 is the concept of slippery slope arguments, which is a bad argument that piles on conditions after conditions, which might be false, and eventually collapses the argument on top of itself. Here's an example:

Kevin: Don't buy a BMW!
Bob: Why not?!
Kevin: Their reliability is horrible!
Bob: But newer BMWs are just as reliable as Hondas if maintained properly!
Kevin: No they're not. You'll end up broken down in the middle of nowhere and probably have to drop a ton of cash into fixing it. Not to mention it'll probably blow up a week after you get it fixed! Trust me, get a Honda!
Bob: *sarcasm* Your argument was very convincing Kevin...

As you can see, Kevin piles on a bunch of conditions that just continue to make his argument weaker and weaker, which shows a perfect example of what a slippery slope argument is!

Inferring and Implying

When you are implying something, you are basically leaving the conclusion unsaid. When you infer something on the other hand, you assume the unstated claim must be the conclusion.

This topic really caught my interest because I can refer to it so much in my personal life. With my friends, it seems like we are always having a mix up on what people say or do, based on the fact that everyone seems to either catch or miss the implication someone else makes. This can go the other way as well, when someone draws their own conclusion on something someone else says.

For example, the other day I told my friend "Hey, lets grab some coffee before work." It is implied that if we were to grab coffee, then he would have to be ready a little bit earlier so that I could pick him up and still have time to get some coffee before work started. He ended up not being ready at all, so we couldn't get any coffee because he assumed that we would still be leaving at the same time. I guess I should refer him to this class so he could use some critical thinking in order to catch my implications in the future haha!

Advertising on the Internet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLTIowBF0kE&feature=channel

You've probably seen the above commercial at one point or another, but if you haven't, it is basically a HILARIOUS commercial advertising Old Spice products for men! The commercial's basic layout that it uses in order to convince you to buy the product is to show you a man doing unbelievable things that aren't possible for the average male, but at least you can smell like this godly man! Now, can we accept his bold claims?

First we must identify the claim, which simply put is that using Old Spice will make you smell like the perfect man (refer to the commercial for all the examples!) One of the ways that you can accept or reject a claim is to use your personal experience, and in my personal experience, Old Spice smells pretty darn good, and is a product I use everyday! I guess if you could put it into words, Old Spice does make you smell like a godly man! So even though his claims are really outrageous, I can accept the claims because he is arguing that this is what a godly man smells like, not that Old Spice will make you able to do the unbelievable things he does in the commercial.

Repairing Arguments

Smoking cigarettes is bad. Smokers should all make the effort to quit.

In the above argument, you can see that the conclusion is "Smokers should all make the effort to quit" and the premise is "Smoking cigarettes is bad." What do they mean by "bad"? Since the premise is very vague, the argument is weak, but luckily we can add in another premise or two to repair the argument and make it a strong one! We can go on to talk about the numerous health risks that are associated with smoking, such as lung cancer, higher risk for heart attacks, and even yellowing of teeth. This list can go on and on, but we only need a few to help this argument. Expanding on what makes cigarettes "bad" not only makes the statement less vague, but also strengthens the argument. What we did with this argument in this case satisfies one of the criteria to count as repairing an argument, which is if it becomes stronger or valid, then it counts as a repair!