Week 16-Post 3: Chapter 10-Too Much Emotion

The most useful or interesting concept that I found while taking this course this semester was concepts in Chapter 10: Too Much Emotion of the Epstein text. This Chapter is interesting because many people do things and believe things based on their emotions. One's emotions are very strong on their decision making abilities. Epstein states, Appeals 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). An appeal that stood out to me is the appeal to fear. Many politicians and advertisers use this appeal to emotion to get people to do things because they put that fear in peoples brain and mentality. Appeal to fear gets people to do things that they may not want do or may affect the decisions they take based on their fear. Politicians always use appeal to fear to get votes and get people to support them. Like for instance people are scared of terrorism and a politician goes on and speaks on what he will do to stop terrorism. People will support him because this politician and others will create this fear for people to act based on their fear and emotions. Found this Chapter to be very useful and have many important concepts on appeal to emotion that are use in everyday life.

Week 16-Post 2: Most favorite, least favorite thing about Class

Favorite thing about this class was that it was mainly online most of the time so it made it possible for me to take this class to fit to my already busy schedule. My favorite thing about this class is that most of the work was done through daily blogs and the questions really made you thing on how to apply reasoning and examples to show that one understands the concepts in comm 41. Another favorite thing is that the Richard Epstein text of Critical thinking really explain the concepts very well as well as the group communication book. The least favorite thing about this class is that one has to wait 12 hours every time to post a new blog up to blogpost website. Sometimes that is stressful because you have to wait 12 hours to post every blog up. Another least favorite thing was that I felt that there some issues with group projects even though I worked well with my group. Sometimes its hard getting all five people in the group to find a time to meet in person where everyone can make it to get organize and start planning for the project. Almost everyone has a busy schedule and in sense taking this online class because it's more convenient for there schedules. This class can improve by having no restrictions on the blog post and perhaps an alternative to group projects.

Week 16-Post 1: Learning in Comm 41

There are many new concepts I learned through taking this comm 41 course and applying the concepts to everyday life. All the concepts learn through this semester were useful by applying them through weekly blogs that we had to do because doing these blogs assure that I was understanding and thinking such as concepts like Appeal to Emotion. I never knew that there was many concepts to do with Appeals to Emotion such as appeal to pity, appealing to fear,appeal to spite, and many more concepts having to do with appeal to emotion. The group projects were very useful for this class because it made you go back and look at concepts and apply them to group projects such as looking at a editorial and applying some of these comm 41 concepts to write and critique the editorial. The second project was using a social organization such as PETA to write about what kind of argumentation the website uses to prove their points. All these things were helpful to learn all the concepts in comm 41 but the blogs were most useful to keep you thinking about how your going to apply the concepts and use your own examples to write on your blog.

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.

Week 9-Post 3-Fallacies

There were some Fallacies in Chapter 11 of the Epstein text that I wanted to do further research on just because they didn't seem clear enough. According to www.nizkor.org, a fallacy is " is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position". According to the website nizkor.org the following pattern must happen
1) Person A has position X.
2) Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3) Person B attacks position Y.
4) Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This fallacy is committed when people actually misinterpret the other person's argument but putting words in your opponents mouth that they did not say is not going to attack their position or argument. So this made it a bit easier to understand than the text because Epstein states about strawman fallacy is "its easier to knock down someones argument if you misinterpret it, putting words in other person's mouth" (202). But searching another link heleped me better understand this type of fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Week 9-Post 2-Group Assignment # 1: News and Politics

Well the first group assignment was critical thinking in news and politics. My group met in the library and we decided on an editorial called, “Video Games and Free Speech” which talks about when California made it illegal to sell video games to minors in 2005 which violated the first amendment of free speech. Below is the link of the editorial that our group analyzed. Well this firs group assignment was useful because it made you critically analyze the editorial by using all the subjects we have learned by reading the small group communication text, Epstein text, and by doing all these blogs. For instance I analyzed the major claim in the editorial so from what I learned from reading the two books I wrote about the major claim. For example, I stated that the major claim of this editorial is “California lawmakers may have been right when they decided that video games in which players kill and maim are not the most socially beneficial form of expression. The Constitution, however, does not require speech to be ideal for it to be protected” (NY times editorial). From what the concepts I learned from reading the books I was able to determine the major claim and explain why this is the major claim of the editorial. The reason that this is the major claim is clearly because this is clearly the opinion of the editor and what he will claim for the rest of the editorial. From there I was able to analyze the article more because clearly the author agreed with California lawmakers to ban the sale of illegal games to minors even though it violated the first amendment. So this first group assignment was useful because it made me critically use all the new concepts learn in this class to analyze this editorial as a group and it was useful using some of the concepts learn in this class to get the get the assignment done.

Week 9-Post 1-General Claims

In the Epstein text I read a section "General Claims and Their Contradictories" and Epstein states that "some" and "all" can be ambiguous. Epstein states, "All means 'Every single one, no exceptions.'Sometimes all is meant as 'Every single one, and is at least one.' Which reading is best may depend on the argument and some means 'at least one.' Sometimes some is meant as 'at least one, but not at all" (160). So in other words Epstein explains two different general claims which have to do with "all" and "some" general claims. For example, When I was in high school I was the first one of my five friends to drive. So they would all want rides, but my car is camaro that could only seat 3 other people. So i said, "I can give some of you guys of ride, but not all because my car can only fit three people". This is an example supporting or showing how "some" general claims work.
I will know explain "all" general claims by using a similar example. For example, After my camaro decided to break down on me in high school. My parents let me used their SUV which can sit 7 people. Then i told my friends, " All five of you can get a ride whenever you need one". So in difference from "some" this example shows that every single of my friends will get a ride, no exception because I have enough room to fit all of them. With my camaro I could only fit some firends but at least one friend would get a ride.

Week 7-Post 3: False Dilemas

In Chapter 6 of the Epstein text I came across a section that is called "False Dilemma". Epstein states, " A false dilemma is a bad use of excluding possibilities where the 'or' claim is false or impossible. Sometimes just the dubious 'or' claim itself is called a "false dilemma" (118). An example of a bad argument or a false dilemmas would be when the claim doesn't list all the possibilities. An example of a false dilemma would be:

My Girlfriend says, " You watch too much football all Sunday morning until the last game Sunday night and instead you should be doing something productive like using the new treadmill you just purchased. Either you limit your Sunday morning to one game and then do something productive for the rest of Sunday or the t.v. has to go.

I say : You can't take the t.v. away from me just for watching football.

My girlfriend says, " So you agree to limit your football to one game on Sunday"

Even though my girlfriend it trying to make an argument to stop me to watch football its not a very good one because she her claim doesn't state all the possibilities of what will happen if I don't stop watching football. So the example above is an example of a "False dilemma".

Week 7-Post 2: Refuting an Argument

In Chapter 7 of the Epstein text I came across a interesting section called "Refuting an Argument". According to Epstein, direct ways of refuting an argument is "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" (149). I learned that at least one of those three rules I described above is necessary to prove or go against someones argument to show that its false and the argument will no longer be valid or strong. So the point in refuting an argument is to show evidence or prove that someones argument is false or prove them wrong. I also came across a section "Attempts to refute that are bad arguments" where I learned that in rational discussion its very bad to use ridicule as a device to go refutes ones argument. Epstein states, "It ends arguments, belittles the other person, and makes enemies" (151). For example, lets say my friend says " I want to become a doctor because because I like to help people". I ridicule his argument by saying, " You don't have the dedication and smarts to ever be a doctor and laugh at his statement and idea of becoming a doctor one day". By ridiculing an argument or a refute i am only ending the argument and making insulting the person like Epstein describes in the quote above.

Week 7-Post 1: Consider Alternatives

In Chapter 6 of the Epstein text I came across a section name "Compound claims and 'or' claims". Epstein defines compound claim as "a compound claim is one composed of other claims, but has to be viewed as just one claim" (113). According to Epstein I learned that some words or sentences can have two or more claims together to come out with a new claim. The compound claim depends on the "truth value" that means is the claim truthful or is the person making the claim being truthful. For example, you tell your friend, "Can I borrow your car or can you take me home which will take more time out of your day if this is the case". I also came across a section in Chapter 6 called "The Contradictory of a claim" where I learned about a "contradictory claim". According to Epstein, a contradictory claim is " The contradictory of a claim is one that has the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances. Sometimes a contradictory is called the negation of a claim" (114). So the difference between the contradictory claim compared to a claim is the opposite of what the claim states. For instance a claim is "Bobby is afraid of horror movies". The contradictory claim would be "Bobby is not afraid of horror movies".

Week 6-Post 3: The Principle of Rational Discussion

In the Epstein text of Chapter 4 there is a section which is called "The Principle of Rational Discussion" that was interesting to read. According to Epstein, "The Principle of Rational Discussion" have three important principles that we assume that people must know to make good discussion/arguments. Epstein states, the three main principles are "knows about the subject under discussion, Is able and willing to reason well, and Is not lying" (60). Epstein goes on to talk about if your going to discuss something or argue it should be something that you have knowledge about which is part of his firs principle. For example I am not good with cars or don't know anything about mechanics so i cannot discuss about this subject, but I do watch a lot of moves so I have a lot of knowledge on different where I can open a good discussion if it comes up. The second part that Epstein talks about is that people must be able to reason well, but most people do not do so because they always want to be right and will not accept other peoples arguments so there is no point in reasoning with people who have those ideas. The final principle to reasoning with people is that the other person is not lying because if a person continuously lies there is no way you can reason with a person that lies.

Week 6-Post 2: Advertisment on Internet

In the link below its a advertisement about watching t.v online with your PC or laptop anywhere you go. This seems very convenient because you can watch t.v. programing on your laptop without having to call a cable or satellite technician to install your cable like you would for your television. This website also advertises to watch channels from over 120 different countries and over 2150 channels to watch if you get this deal to get "TV Noop on your PC". This website makes a strong argument that for only one payment of 44.95 you can get over 2150 channels compare to cable and satellite t.v. services where one pays a average of 80 dollars for about 100 channels. SO everything is sounding good but the low price and only one payment of 44.95 is to good to be true when I know for sure that cable and satellite companies are really expensive monthly costs to get cable for your t.v. Yet again they ask for credit card information to pay to get this package of over 2150 channel which could a good deal but most likely a scam to steal your credit card information or even install viruses into your computer. I was tempted to try and download it but I don't give my credit card number to websites I don't trust.

http://en.tvnoop.com/?source=ppccrash.TVNOOP&player=000000203s000003020US