Discussion Question #26

For the last discussion question of the week, I'm focusing on the differences between particular and general causes and effect claims. First though, I'll focus on the normal conditions that are present when we observe a cause and effect claim.

When we hear a cause and effect claim, such as "Jim walking outside during the winter caused him to catch a cold", we have to treat it like a regular argument when judging it's validity and it's strength. The more specific a cause/effect claim is, the less likely it is that the cause is true and the effect is false. We could make it as specific as possible, such as:

Jim rarely gets sick.
Jim was only wearing a t-shirt and shorts.
It was 45 degreees outside.
Jim wasn't feeling ill before going for a walk.
etc etc etc.

As the book says, "we could go on forever" when making a claim as specific as possible. That's why normal conditions is essential to understanding the obvious and unstated claims that are present to establish the strength/validity between the cause and the effect.

Particular Cause and Effect:
The book defines this type as a "this happened once, then that happened once" kind of event, such as Spot barking and waking up Dick in the middle of the night. It's specific, uses specific events and sequences, and describes a specific occurence. However, we must establish a particular cause and effect event by trying to establish a generalization that describes the correlation of "Every time this happens, that happens".

General Cause and Effect:
This is where general causes and effects come in. It's a broad statement that explains the happenings of a particular cause and effect event.

In the example of Jim walking outside and catching a cold, we can make the generalization such as: "Walking outside in harsh winter conditions without protective/warming clothing can cause illness".

Discussion Question #25: Mission Critical

When I first clicked on the "Mission: Critical" link, I wasn't exactly sure what I was supposed to do. After realizing it's a general review of pretty much all the concepts we've been covering, I immediately bookmarked it. This general page works as a very effective review approach for earlier concepts such as "ambiguity/vagueness" to concepts such as "inductive reasoning" and other forms that we've been discussing as of late. The website lay-out is very simple in it's "table of contents" format, as it makes it very easy to navigate.

I ended up reading through some older concepts and completing the example portions for some of them. I also read through most of the individual links, as I realized I needed to brush up on some of the earlier stuff after trying to attempt some of the examples provided. All in all, this site is exactly what everyone needs to have on hand just in case you need to refresh your memory.

Discussion Question #24: Cause & Effect

The website provided by the professor was pretty helpful in explaining the concept of "causal arguments". Causal arguments are pretty common as usually every act in life has some form of a "cause" and a later "effect", such as being out in the cold (cause) exposed you to illness (effect). The example provided on the website was a pretty interesting one in my opinion. If you had little-to-no information about the case prior to reading it (such as the illegally parked car), there would be many different scenarios that a person could argue.

I "knew" about the cause and effect concept, but I never really actually read up on it. There were several things that were pretty useful that I never really bothered to notice before. Causal arguments basically follow the form of inductive reasoning, except for an important difference. As the website stated, inductive arguments imply that there is no significant difference while causal arguments imply that there is one significant difference. Another would be the rules that causal arguments must follow, such as the cause must precede the effect or you'll run into a fallacy such as post hoc reasoning or reverse causation. The exercises were also pretty helpful in applying the info that I just read to real-life situations.

Discussion Question #23

For the last discussion post of the week, I'm going to focus on refuting arguments by use of an analogy. While the book states that using analogies in a single argument is usually too vague to use as a premise, using an analogy between two arguments is a very powerful way to refute. The book uses a great example by discussing the issue of homosexuality. In it, "Tom" refers to homosexual marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage and there should be an amendment preventing it. "Zoe" then responds with an analogy showing how Britney Spears is also ruining the sanctity of marriage by marrying/divorcing in one-day and that divorce should be outlawed also. Some people, certainly on a subject like this, can be close-minded and/or ignorant at times, but using a method like this will make that close-minded/ignorant individual see both sides of the argument. Using an analogy of one argument to another easily points out the flaws in a persons argument, just like Zoe showed Tom how ridiculous his argument was.

Discussion Question #22: Post Two

For my second discussion post of the week, I'm focusing on "reasoning by criteria". Out of each type of reasoning listed on the professor's blog, I believe this is the one that confused me quite a bit at first. I really can't find much information online besides the link the professor provided. After searching around and viewing multiple examples, I came to a much better understanding of the concept. "Criteria reasoning" basically means that whatever argument or statement we come across, we must define whatever criteria within it to be able to make some form of "right/wrong" judgement. One of the websites I researched talked about how most criteria uses many common morals/values to make it easier to accept certain criteria with minimal questioning, along with future legitimacy in any other argument.

From this website, http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/criteria.htm, we can see where the judgement of "right" and "wrong" based on common values come from. Those three examples give us two versions (one right and one wrong) of each statement to help further understand the concept.

Discussion Question #21

This week, we're studying different forms of reasoning. As the blog post stated, I'll cover each type and give a real world example for each concept.

Reasoning By Analogy: To use an analogy in an argument or any form of reasoning, what you're essentially doing is drawing a comparison between two different subjects. It can be used to further cement your point, or it can be used to make something more understandable if either one of the subjects is unknown to the other person.

Example: The severe crackdown by the DEA on medical marijuana shops in San Jose is like treating dandruff with decapitation.

Sign Reasoning: Sign reasoning deals with the assumption of either an event or some form of symbol is a reliable indicator of another event/symbol/etc. A common expression I read while researching is "judging a book by its cover".

Example: "That guy over there has tattoos and baggy pants. He must be in a gang."

Causal Reasoning: Causal reasoning deals with the establishment between the "cause" and the "effect" of events in succession, where the second event is caused by the first. Usually, it's used to prevent/alter the outcome of something by changing the cause to prevent whatever effects might be present.

Example: Lung cancer and cigarettes. To prevent the proven effects (cancer), people should stop smoking cigarettes (cause).

Reasoning By Criteria: When reasoning by critera, we usually try to imply certain points without directly speaking our minds.

Example:
Joe: "I've been practicing a lot lately. Here, I'll play what I've been working on." *plays*
Band Director: *Cringing* "Well...you're getting better."

Instead of flat out saying "you suck", the band director chooses a much nicer and more encouraging approach to an aspiring musician.

Reasoning By Example: A form of reasoning that uses real-world examples to make a point.

Example: "You really need to study longer. Bob studies a lot longer than you do."

Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning focuses on applying past observations/experiences in your present/future arguments or statements.

Example: I have an Econ class that is only on Mondays from 6:30-9:15 every week. Each week, I've left at 6 pm and have gotten there early every single time. This past Monday I ran into heavy traffic. I'll leave earlier next Monday to ensure I don't end up being late to class because of traffic.

Deductive Reasoning: We dealt with deductive reasoning a lot when studying general forms of logical arguments. Deductive reasoning is pretty much deducing from a general statement down to a specific point (like the whole A, B, then A argument).

Example: All college students must take a communications course. Jerry is a college student. Therefore, Jerry has to take a communications course.

Discussion Question #20: Spite/Debt

For the last discussion of the week, I'm going to focus on "appeal to spite" and "calling in your debts" as they are related to each other.

An appeal to spite, in other words, is to form an argument based on the principal of "two wrongs make a right". It's an immoral way to try to argue, as revenge in any form is looked down upon by many cultures.

For example:
Jerry: Hey Jim, will you help me with this assignment? I'm in danger of failing.
Jim: I'll try to help you out.
Chris: Jim, why'd you help Jerry? He never pays you back and is a mean person. He deserves to fail.

The argument that we can see from this generally would be something like, "Since Jerry is a mean person, he deserves to fail." We can see a motive of "getting even" or "revenge", which are the general signs of an "appeal to spite".

To "call in your debts" is pretty much the exact opposite of an "appeal to spite". According to the book, calling in your debts means, "You should believe or do something if you owe someone a favor" (pg. 193).

For example:
Derek: What are you doing tonight?
Harold: Oh, hanging out with Larry.
Derek: Well you should be hanging out with me instead. I did help you out big time last week.

The argument behind this would be something like, "You should be hanging out with me instead of someone else only because I helped you out last week." The motive behind "calling in your debts" is usually trying to take advantage of guilt.

Discussion Question #19: Page 195

For the second discussion question of the week, I'm choosing to complete objective 3 on page 195. Objective 3 states, "Find an advertisement that uses an appeal to fear. Is it a good argument?"

Using an appeal to fear aspect on any argument is a very effective way of capturing an audience's attention. Many ads utilize this as all humans are susceptible to fear, whether it be an ad for a politician, law enforcement, or some sort of health issue.

I found this Bayer advertisement that is a perfect example of a bad argument that appeals to certain health fears that millions of humans face. Basically, the argument this advertisement is trying to state is, "If you don't take Bayer, you'll have a heart attack like this random father with his kid." It doesn't tell us if this random individual that was quoted had any family history of heart problems or if this person lived an unhealthy lifestyle of bad food/no exercise.

The football and "father-son" moment would instill fear into any father out there who has a child. As humans, all of us remember the past and usually ponder what the future may hold for us. Health issues are usually the main focus when thinking about the future, which is why most advertisements related to health care, a recalled drug, or new advancements in medical technology use an appeal to fear.

Discussion Question #18: Appeal To Emotion

For the first discussion of the week, we're focusing on Chapter 10 which involves the concept of "appealing to emotion". The main purpose of using any of the forms of "appeal to emotion" is to try to take advantage of  the emotional weaknesses of others in order to make an argument even more convincing. It may appear to make an argument stronger, but in reality appealing to emotion is a shady trick that results in a very weak/bad argument. Political "attack" ads that we've been seeing for the past few months (the whole Meg Whitman vs. Jerry Brown ads are quite hilarious) are great examples of trying to appeal to voters emotions.

I'm going to use the general "appeal to emotion" aspect because of all the political ads I had to watch during the post-season recently (GIANTS!). As the book says, "An appeal to emotion in an argument is just a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way" (pg.191). Besides attack ads that are more directed towards the "appeal to fear" aspect, a lot of the proposition ads/certain candidates focused on the general premise of "Are you mad at so-and-so running our city/state?" or "Don't you feel like you're being taken advantage of by X policy/tax/propositon? If so, vote yes/no on ____". They all focus on the same meaning that if you feel a certain way about a certain political issue, then go out and vote.