Week 14-Post 3: The Normal Conditions

In Chapter 15, Epstein talks about "The Normal Conditions" and goes and relates to the example he gives of spot and dick. Epstein goes on and explain why the normal conditions are important to cause an argument or example to be valid or strong. According to Epstein, Normal Conditions are "for casual claim, the normal conditions are the obvious and plausible unstated claims that are needed to establish that the relationship between purported cause and purported effect is valid or strong" (303). Epstein uses the example about Dick and Spot to show how the concept of normal conditions is use and the example is:

"Dick was sleeping soundly up to the time that Spot barked.
Spot barked at 3 a.m.
Dick doesn't normally wake up at 3 a.m.
Spot was close to where Dick was sleeping.
There was no other loud noise at the time...." (303).

Epstein explains that its important to leave or exclude the obvious and normally we assume that things are the "normally" just like that. For instance in the example above, Dick normally doesn't wake up wake up at 3 a.m. and we need to assume that things are normally like this that Dick never tends to wake up at 3 a.m. but this time he did. This concept was just interesting to me and made sense when Eptein conclude the normal conditions in his example of Dick and Spot.

Week 14-Post 2: Mission Critical Website

At first it took me a few minutes to realize that mission critical was not another concept in critical thinking that I had to learn. I looked all over the place and only saw a lot of familiar concepts that I already learned about by reading the Epstein text and small group communication text. Then I realized that the mission critical website is a website that reviews mots of the concepts learned in critical thinking, but there were also new concepts that I had not heard or knew nothing about. I remember that there was a chapter in the Epstein text where we learned about different appeals to emotion. I don't remember seeing "Appeal to Prejudice" in the Epstein text or at least did not see this concept. From this mission critical website I learned that appeal to prejudice is also known as appeal to stereotype. According to the mission critical website, appeal to prejudice is "a predisposition to judge groups of people or things either positively or negatively, even after the facts of a case indicate otherwise". This website is really helpful because it has all the concepts that I have learn about in this comm 41 class in critical thinking and allows me to go back as well as other students to go back and review concepts that were not clear the first time around.

Week 13-Post 1: Cause and Effect website

According to the website, http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/induc/causal.html, one of the most important concepts for inductive reasoning in your arguments is to argue with causation. This material seem new to me because I had no idea of making arguments with casual arguments which makes your inductive reasoning a lot stronger by using causation. This website helped me understand that casual arguments are closely related to the structure of inductive reasoning, but there is one difference from inductive reasoning and casual arguments. The website helped me understand that the implication is that there is no significant difference in inductive reasoning, but casual arguments imply that there is one significant difference and this is what makes causal arguments different from inductive arguments. The exercises helped me better understand casual arguments. For example, the first exercise asked what was the "commonality" of the five people getting sick at the picnic? The most reasonable answer and choice for me was that this five people eat the potato salad because these five people most have a cause for getting sick while other people at the picnic did not get sick. The difference for people who did not get sick at the picnic is that they did not eat the potato salad at the picnic.

Week 12-Post 3: Analogies in the Law

In chapter 12, Epstein talks about reasoning by analogy. According to Epstein, reasoning by analogy is "a comparison becomes reasoning by analogy when it is part of an argument: On the side of the comparison we draw a conclusion, so on the other side we should conclude the same" (253). Epstein goes in to talk about "analogies in the law". Epstein states that analogies in law have to be presented with detail and with careful analyzed arguments. For example, a judge has to reason using analogies in the law to make a fair ruling against the person that is being accused of the crime. A judge has to carefully analyzed the arguments and evidence of both the prosecuting side and defending side of attorneys and the judge makes a decision after a certain amount of time and decides how to rule on the case. Analogies are everywhere, but they are a big part of the law.

Week 12-Post 2: Deductive Reasoning

The type of reasoning that I found most difficult to understand was Deductive reasoning. Even when I read the meaning for deductive reasoning, I had trouble understanding how to understand the meaning and think of a real world example. According to changingminds.org, deductive reasoning or deduction starts with a general case and deduces specific instances. From the link that I will provide below, I learned that deduction starts with an assumed hypothesis or theory. The assumed hypothesis might be accepted right away or might not be as accepted but the argument is not questioned or argued against. I also learned that deduction is used by scientist that take a general scientific law and apply it this scientific law to case and which they assume that this scientific law is true. According to wisegeek.com I found interesting is that deductive reasoning is one of the two basic forms of valid reasoning. So in difference from inductive reasoning that argues from the particular to general, deductive reasoning argues from the general to specific instance. So in away deductive and inductive are similar in style, but the way they are use to reason are use differently.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/deduction.htm

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-deductive-reasoning.htm

Week 12-Post 1: Other forms of Reasoning

Here are some examples of other types reasoning:

Reasoning By Analogy- Marco is physically fit because he works out 2 times everyday. Sarah also works out 2 times everyday. Therefor she will also be physically fit.

Sign Reasoning- BART is congested with a lot of Giants Fans, then there is a Giants baseball game happening today.

Casual Reasoning- If one does not maintain their car, then the car will have a higher capability of breaking down.

Reasoning by Criteria- If you want to get good grades, then you have to read this book that guides you on how to get good grades.

Reasoning by Example- You should never take a taxi anywhere because it is too expensive.I have to ride a taxi to work everyday because there is no other form of Public transportation around my home so I spend so much money on the taxi.

Inductive Reasoning- My mom has made pancakes and hot chocolate for breakfast everyday since I was a kid, so I will be getting pancakes and hot chocolate for breakfast tomorrow.

Deductive Reasoning-If one does not arrive to BART on time then one will be late to work. One missed BART. Then one will be late to work.

Week 11-Post 3: Call in your Debts

According to Epstein, an argument that "calls in in your debts" appeals to the opposite of spite: "You should believe or do something if you owe someone a favor"(193). I found this interesting because this appeal to emotion is true and I never thought this would be an appeal to emotion. People always do feel pressure to do things for a friend or someone close because they either owe them a favor or have a debt with them. For example, my friend asked me this past Tuesday if I could take him to his doctors appointment. I really did not want to take him because I was busy and he wanted me to take him during traffic hours. So I told him I couldn't take him. So my friend went on to reply remember all those times I bought you food and helped you with your homework assignments. So I felt bad and felt that I owe my friend to take him to the doctors so I took him. This example is using the appeal to emotion of "calls in your debts". So I just found this appeal to emotion really interesting because it actually happens all the time and people do things they really don't want to do because they owe someone a favor as well as many other things.

Week 11-Post 2: Pg. 195 Exercise #2

TRESemme Advertisement:
"Do not miss a fresh look and feel on the second day. TRESemme® Fresh Start Dry Shampoo is the perfect solution to clean hair without water anytime. The unique formula, with Mineral Clay and Citrus, refreshes your hair by removing oil and odor while injecting volume. Just a quick spray transforms lifeless, limp hair into clean, fresh hair with full of bouncy body. It also helps to maintain hair color with less washing."

I find this argument to be a good one. The reason is because this TRESeme Fresh Start Dry Shampoo is using a convincing argument that people should use this product to help them ease on the washing of the hair constantly that can affect the dye in ones hair. Most importantly this product is more appealing to women who don't want to go through the hassle of washing their hair each day. Most importantly when a woman has to straighten or curl their hair each day it can be time consuming but most importantly it damages their hair in the long run. So that long lasting healthy hair look is not there. With the TRESemme Fresh Start Dry Shampoo disposable to women around the world, it will help them easily get better looking hair and help conserve the life in their hair. The best thing about this product is that it promises good-looking clean hair without having to shower which ends up saving tome and energy. This advertisement is a great apple-polishing argument.

Link to Advertisement:
http://www.drugstore.com/qxp265171/tresemme/freshstart_dry_shampoo_for_oilystraight_to_normal_hair.htm?fromsrch=tresemme+shampoo

Week 11-Post 1: Appeal to Emotion

In Chapter 10: "Too much Emotion", Epstein talks about appeals to emotion. According to Epstein, Appeal to emotion is "an argument is just a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way" (191). The emotion that appeal to me was "Appealing to fear" because it was the first appeal to emotion that I could relate to. Is is true that appeal to fear is way that politicians and advertisers manipulate people and it happens all over the world. I could relate to this because does how people get other people to do things because they create that fear in a persons mind. I remember when I turned 16 I wanted to get my permit to begin learning how to drive, but my mom told me that I had to get only A's B's in my report cards so if i got anything lower than a B I will not continue to use my permit to drive. So in a sense my mom planted that appeal of fear in me to get me to get good grades if I wanted to get my permit. So this the reason that this appeal emotion strikes me because it reminded me of that moment when I wanted my drivers permit.