One Concept.

Throughout this course, I've learned many concepts that I can use in everyday's argument. But one concept that I can definitely refer to even outside this class would be: appeals to emotion. I find this to be interesting and useful because I notice that a lot of people always argue over something based on what they feel. Before I even learned about this appeal, I never realize that many people does argue over something they feel strongly about. I believe that an argument is not even strong if someone says "because I believe so". Epstein's critical thinking book made me realize that premises are important too when it comes to arguments. Of course, people who never took this class will always think emotions play a role in our reasoning but really, premises is just as important too. Appeals to emotion made me realize that we can't make good decisions if we don't consider the significance in our emotional life and I think that's important to keep in mind.

Favorites/Least favorites.

Favorites: I honestly have so much to choose from, but the two things that stuck out to me the most and it's my favorite would be: blogging. I never thought I would actually like blogging! I always think it's kind of annoying writing down my thoughts and ideas.. but this class taught me that sometimes blogging is the easiest way to express ideas! Sure, it might be kind of annoying to write things down online but it actually also taught me how to phrase words and ideas in a much better way that everyone can understand. The second favorite thing is how I had to learn how to have time management. I thought it was a great idea that the professor enforced the rule that we must post something that's 12 hours apart. This is a great idea because it taught me how to spread my work apart so I don't overload myself.

Least favorite: I honestly can't think of anything that's least favorite. I've learned so much and everything I learned turned out to be a positive and useful tool for the rest of my college career.

What I learned.

This summer, I learned a lot in this class. First, I learned how to manage time. All the professors that I have taken never done a blog nor telling their students to post something that's 12 hours apart. At first, I found it to be annoying but as time went on, I got used to it and it's like a reflex! I didn't have to figure out when I should post my next blog. Second, I learned that online learning is just as effective as classroom learning. Sure, it might not be the same because the professor isn't there physically, but emailing about any question and concerns is the same as talking in person because the professor usually goes into detail when explaining things. Third, I learned that online group meetings can be quite difficult. I find it difficult because everyone has a different schedule whether it's work, family time, or hanging out. I learned how to work around people's schedule and to have patience whenever a group mate take a while to respond back. Overall, this summer course taught me things that are useful and I can use it in the future.

Discussion of group assignment #1

When I was with a group of friends yesterday, I had so much time to waste before the movie started so I started discussing about "gay marriages" to my friends. I briefly described to them what the article was about. It was about whether or not gay parents would be qualify to adopt or to even raise children based on their sexuality background. As I have found, my friends pointed out that it seemed like the article did not give a more in depth background research because the whole article that was being argued among to those who are lesbian, gay, transgender. It doesn't validate any arguments because we need reliable source such as: news and research. But everything that was being argued in the "gay marriages" article did not include much of it. However, my friends weren't able to pick up any flaws in reasoning in my group assignment paper since they believe my group mates and I described everything in good context and explanation.

Usefulness of the Mission Critical website.

In the mission critical website, I find "vagueness and ambiguity" most useful. Everyday, we always use it without acknowledging it. This section shows the differentiation between these two words.

Ambiguous: it has two specific meanings that makes sense in context
Vague: something that is not clear in the context

For example, my boyfriend tried to give me directions on where to meet him up. He told me to meet him by the fountain near the mall. This is vague AND also ambiguous because there are 3 fountains near the mall. It was vague in a sense because he didn't tell me how the surrounding looks like and it was ambiguous because there is more than one meaning to it.

After reading this "vagueness and ambiguity" section in the website, it was useful because I will be more aware of what to say to my friends and family so there won't be any confusion.

The usefulness of the Cause and Effect website.

In the cause and effect website, what I found useful was: Inductive reasoning. I find this interesting because when people are arguing over a situation, they tend to base on observed instances. Like the website mentioned, the accident between the biker and the driver occurred and if we need more observations in order to see if the argument is valid, we must interview witnesses, design a study of automobile and bicycle traffic on that street in order to verify if the premise is describing the normal condition pattern of traffic.

Casual arguments follows inductive argument when the argument itself carries as part of the second premises. Or else there won't be any significant difference. For example, when my friends and I argue, sometimes we don't judge our premise based on our observations. Instead, we jump right into the conclusion and of course in an argument, you want to win. However, after reading this website's cause and effect, it made me realize that inductive reasoning is important or else the argument itself would be weak and can be seen in many different ways.

Usefulness of the first major course assignment.

From the first major course assignment that I've done, it taught me a lot even though it was an online class assignment. First, it taught me how to work in a group environment through emails and chatting. I learned that online assignments can just be as effective as a in person assignment. Even though my group mates and I all have different schedule, I learned how to work around people's schedule and even sacrificing my hanging out time to adjust to my group mate's schedule. Second, it taught me that chatroom is just as useful as meeting in person. I find that chatroom helps a lot more because we can copy and paste websites to each other and share ideas and we get to discuss everything faster. Third, I learned that through the major assignments, it taught me to look over what I learned in the past and reapply it to make my arguments stronger. I find that the first and second major course assignment has taught me a lot in real life how to make arguments valid and strong.

Interesting Concept - Chp 13

A concept that I found interesting on chapter 13 is called: "misleading claims with numbers". There are many categories in this section. To name a few, there's apple and oranges: which means a comparison where it doesn't make sense to compare other items. Also, there's one called, two times zero is still zero. This means that when someone gives a numerical comparison that makes it seem impressive when the base of the comparison is not mentioned.

I find two times zero is still zero an interesting concept. Since I work in retails, my manager often put a lot of pressure on me since I'm a sales associate. Often times, he would always remind me of how good or how bad the store is doing if we don't make the sales goal of the day. After reading this concept in Epstein's critical thinking book, I realized that my manager never tells me the base of the comparison when he's trying to tell me the goal. Now I can use this concept and ask my manager what is the base comparison because who knows? Maybe the store is doing well but he's putting more pressure on me to sell more clothing to benefit his pocket and company!

Misleading claims with numbers (defintion & example)

Misleading Claims with numbers:
in Chapter 10, there were quite a number of examples in section A: misleading claims with numbers. A concept that I found interesting and I can relate to is called "two times zero is still zero". This is where someone gives a numerical comparison that makes something look impressive but no comparison is provided.

An everyday example that I would like to share is: Since I work at Banana Republic as a sales associate, my manager has a "pants selling goal" for me each week. In average, I have to sell 16 pants for the 4 days I work in total. Just a few days ago, my manager and I sat down and talked about my productivity. He said "Did you know that pants selling in our store went up to 67% percent in just the month?" It didn't strike to me until I read chapter 10 of Epstein's critical thinking book that my manager is missing the comparison. Sure, the store's pants sale went up by 67%, but my manager never told me how many in total were sold during the past month.

Interesting Concept - Chp. 12

A concept that I found interesting on chapter 12 is called "what is reasoning by analogy?" With this concept, we start our reasoning analogy with a comparison; but not all comparison is an argument. An example for this is: "Aaron is a christian. He shouldn't be committing sins because that is the same as disrespecting God." This is a valid analogy because there was an analogy that concludes this argument. Another example of an analogy: "Lori should drive this time because Anne always drive and it's not fair. Lori and Anne should take turns driving or they both should stay home." Theoretically speaking, this argument may seem good because yes, it is not fair that Anne is always driving. But what if Lori's car is back in the 80's and it can't make it to long distance while Anne's car can? This is an example of a bad reasoning argument by analogy.

Excercise on Chapter 10, Objective #1.

1. Write a bad argument in favor of affirmative action whose only premises appeal to pity.

My best friend, Carolyn got into an argument with one of her friend, Kelly. This is what they said to each other when they were arguing:

Kelly: "you never care about how I feel!"
Carolyn: "if I don't care about how you feel, why would I ask you what's wrong?"
Kelly: "because you're only pitying me"
Carolyn: "why would I pity a friend? you already know that I'm straight up and I don't go around the bushes to tell you what I think of you. Friends tell you the things you need to hear, and not what you want to hear."

From this, we can see that Kelly's argument is bad because she is arguing back based on her emotions rather than using her logic and senses. Her premises is unstated and it appeals to pity too.

Appeals to Emotions.

Emotions play a huge role for our reasoning in every argument. In chapter 10 "too much emotion", there are three types of appeal to emotions:
1. appeal to emotions: this is where the premise encourage you to do something because you feel a certain way
2. appeal to fear: this is a way of how politicians and advertisers manipulate the public
3. appeal to site: this is where someone gets their revenge or to "get even"

An appeal that stood out to me the most was "appeal to site". I can relate this to something that happened to one of my friend last saturday. My friend Carol hated this girl named Selina because Selina was flirting with a guy that Carol is dating. My boyfriend had a get together which Carol and Selina went with their guys. As soon as Carol saw Selina's guy, she flirted with him so much that it seemed like them two were together! I pulled Carol aside and asked how come she's flirting with Selina's guy. Her response was that she wants to get revenge with Selina. With this situation, it relates to "appeal to site" because Carol wants to "get even" with the girl she hates.

Interesting Concept.

The concept that I found most interesting is on chapter 8, general claims and their contradictories. In this section, they talked about how whenever an argument seems valid, it's not. We have to look for premises such as:
All: means "every single one, no exceptions"
Some: means "at least one, but not all"

I noticed that in my daily life, people say a statement that may seem like valid, but it really isnt since the premises either neglect the "all" or 'some" principles like chapter 8 mentioned.

I think it's interesting how there are so many ways we can make general claims and it's hard to set formulas for contradictories. I find it interesting how when people try to win in an argument that sometimes they contradict themselves. For example, my coworker said "I have free movie tickets since one of my high school friend works at the theater." then later I found out that she told our other coworker that she doesn't have a friend that works there. She told him that it was a friend's friend who works at the theater. From this, I believe she can use some tips on general claims. When we say something to someone, we should make sure that it is the truth (because lies usually contradict anyway...)

Aristotelian Logic

Aristotelian Logic that I found useful:
Categorical Claims: a claim that can be rewritten as an equivalent claim that has the following standard forms-

A-claim (universal affirmative): All S is P / All S are P

E-claim (universal negative): No S is P / No S are P

I-claim (particular affirmative): Some S is P / Some S are P

O-claim (particular negative): Some S is not P / Some S are not P

Example:
All cats are mammals.
No cats are reptiles.
Cats are long-haired animals.
Cats are not short-haired animals.

The examples above states that we reason with in daily speech aren't in any of these forms. Instead, Aristotelians suggest that we can rewrite many of them to show that they are categorical by using "=":

All cats meow. = All cats are things that meow.
Some dogs doesn't like cats. = Some dog is a thing that doesn't like cats.

To wrap it up:
In general, we have to keep in mind that in a categorical claim. the term (phrase or word) that replaces the letter S is called the subject of the claim. When an ordinary person sees the sentence "all cats are mammals", they would assume the predicate is "are mammals" while in Aristotelian logic, the predicate is just "mammals".

Chapter 8 - General Claims

In chapter 8, section A: General Claims and their contradictories, there are quite a number of definitions and examples.

1. It is important that we know how to reason using general claims that asserts something.
2. The definition of all: "every single one, no exceptions" -Epstein. This means that all is meant for every single one, and there is at least one
3. The definition of some: "at least one if not all"

The concept that I found interesting is called: "general claims and their contradictories". One personal example would be: My friend Melissa told me to take a PE class with her next year in the fall. She heard from other people that the instructor gives out easy A so therefore, the instructor is easy.
^ From that example, it may seem valid, but it's not. It could be that who she heard it from is athletically fit so that's why it was such an easy A for him or her.

With the definitions from earlier, in order to get someone to believe that their arguments are true, we need to be clear what ALL and SOME mean.

Interesting Concept.

A concept that was interesting to me is called "The contradictory of a claim" on chapter 6, compound claims. So what is considered as contradictory of a claim? It is: "a claim that has an opposite value in all possible circumstances" - Epstein.

For example: A does not equal to B, and B does not equal to A

Sometimes, my friends say things that they do not know it contradicts itself. The other day, I needed a ride from my friend Kevin to somewhere and he said he will be there in 30 mins. But after 30 mins, my best friend called me and said he can't make it so therefore, I would have to take the bus to wherever I am going. This is a contradicting because Kevin said he'll give me a ride but yet, he didn't even come through.

I find this concept interesting/useful because sometimes I say things that makes no sense at all. After reading this concept, it made me realize that I should think about the long run rather than at the moment or else I might end up contradicting myself.

Chapter 7: Refuting An Argument

In chapter 7, Epstein talks about refuting an argument. He shows that there are 3 direct ways of refuting an argument directly:
1. shows that at least one of the premises is doubtful
2. shows that the argument isn't strong
3. shows that conclusion doesn't connect, or false

An example of refuting an argument:
During this past weekend, me, my boyfriend and our friends went to LA for EDC (Electric Daisy Carnival). The weather was extremely hot and humid that I was drinking water nonstop. But my boyfriend only drank a bottle of water when I know he is thirsty. I asked him how come he isn't drinking more water, he said that he doesn't want to use the restroom during the rave. His conclusion doesn't make sense because under the crazy hot/humid weather, all the water you drink will sweat out by itself. That's why it's so important to keep your body hydrate under the heat.

Chapter 6: Compound Claims

One interesting concept that I found useful in chapter 6 is called "the contradictory of a claim". That means a claim has the opposite truth views in a certain situation. I find this claim to be useful because I always catch people who contradict themselves because I'm a good listener and have a good memory that I just know when someone is trying to lie their way out. I think lying for the most part always end up to be contradicting because the liar could never keep their story straight.

For example, my boyfriend and I got into an argument last week. He knows that whenever we get into an argument, I always need a day or two to myself just to cool down and think. He agreed to give me some time alone but within three hours, he gave me a call just to check up and see how I am doing. Now, in this situation.. my boyfriend is contradicting himself because he promised to give me a day or two some time alone but yet, he calls me after three hours. From this, it is obvious that his claim is contradicting.

Interesting Concept.

A concept that I found interesting is in chapter 5 “Is that true?” Section A: Evaluating Premises:

In this section, it talks about what kind of choices are needed in order for the claim to be believable -
1) accept the claim as true
2) reject the claim as false
3) suspend judgment
I found these three choices to be useful because usually when people want to make their claim believable, they lack one of the three or everything in general. In my advertisement post, I chose covergirl waterproof mascara as my example. It’s true that according to the label, it’s waterproof. However, after I tested it out, it was false so therefore, the claim that was supposedly true is not true. I found that evaluating premises is interesting because many people believe that every claim should be backed up with an argument. But in truth, we can’t do that. We need justification for every claim or else the claim can go on forever and ever. It is entirely up to us if we want to believe the claim or not.

Advertisement.

Advertisement is a way to let the customers know what and how the produce is. They often try to advertise their products as "oh my god, this is a must have!". I'm sure many of us get suck into advertisement anywhere via tv, online, magazine, etc. But regardless of that factor, we can't always be bias until we try the product for ourselves. The advertisement I want to share today is the Covergirl waterproof mascara. *click on the image to enlarge*

The other day, I stopped by walgreens because I left my mascara temporary back at home in San Francisco. I walked around the isle of walgreens with my best friend and I came across to covergirl. I asked my best friend if she knows anyone that actually used the covergirl waterproof mascara and if it works since I'm going swimming with some high school friends. My best friend told me that she seen advertisement in magazines about the covergirl mascara and she also told me to read the label of the mascara. I read it and it says "waterproof, does not clump lashes!" So I thought... what the heck. I'll just buy it since it was only $6. When I wore the mascara next day at the pool while swimming, my high school friends were laughing at me. I checked myself in the mirror and saw that my mascara did indeed smear. So obviously, the covergirl advertisement is false because it says "waterproof".

According to chapter 5, it says there are three choices in order to make the advertisement (claim) valid:
1. accept the claim as true
2. reject the claim as false
3. suspend judgment

By reading the label, it clearly says "waterproof" so I accepted the claim to be true. However, when I wore my mascara at the pool, it smeared on me proving the advertisement to be false. Therefore, regardless of what the advertisement says, it didn't matter so I had first hand experience with the mascara.

Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion

Fallacies: A bad argument that has been said to be unrepairable.

Mistaking the person (group) for the claim - definition: Any argument that someone gives about another person is bad.

Example of mistaking the person (group) for the claim: During my high school days, there was a girl named Joanna and she loved to talk about everyone. If she finds out something small about someone, she would exaggerate what she knows into something more. I remember she spreaded a rumor about me because she heard things from others. When my best friend Carolyn confronted Joanna, she told me that Joanna's argument about the rumors she spreaded about me was bad because she didn't have any facts or evidence to back it up. The only thing she said "oh I just heard things from people so I'm just telling it how it is."

From this example, we can see that Joanna's argument about the rumors she spreaded about me was bad because she didn't have any evidence and facts to back it up. Instead, she just based it on things she "heard".

One Concept that I found interesting/useful.

Chapter 3 of Epstein: What is a good argument?

The concept that I found interesting/useful would be "The conclusion follows from the premises". I thought it was interesting how the author emphasize that even if an argument has a plausible premises, it is not enough. Usually when I try to argue with someone, I always think if I have a plausible claim, it is enough to validate an argument. But after reading this chapter, I learned that in order for the plausible claim to be strong/valid, your conclusion that follows the premise must have a connection. I remember this one time when I argued with my best friend, I made no sense at all. I told her how I don't like one of her friend because she seems high maintenance so therefore, she has a slobby attitude. Just because someone might has nice material possession doesn't mean her attitude is slobby. With this example, the next time when I argue with someone, the premises and conclusion must go together in order for the argument to be effective.

Valid & Strong Argument.

Valid Argument: an argument that is valid. All premises are true and conclusion are false at the same time.

Example:
A) Mimi is allergic to cats (premise)
B) As a result, she gets itchy skin and red eyes from the fur. (conclusion)

In this example, we can see that Mimi is allergic to cats is valid. This leads to triggering her allergies for fur.

Strong Argument: Premises that are true at times than a valid one with the same result

Example: Two weeks ago, I was with in the same car as my friend Jay when he got into a car accident. The person who hit Jay’s car kept saying it’s not her fault. I was the witness and luckily, we had another witness who happened to saw the whole accident and plus there was a security camera in the busy street of downtown San Francisco. This is a strong argument because the lady who hit my friend’s car might think she felt the accident was not her fault when in reality, there were witness and the camera to justify her thinking.

Subjective & Objective Claim.

Subjective Claim: A claim that is not proven to be true or false but rather based on someone’s thinking, feeling, and beliefs.

Example of a subjective claim:
When I went shopping with my best friend yesterday, we saw a girlfriend and boyfriend arguing in front of everyone. She automatically assumed the guy is a bad boyfriend due to seeing the girl crying. This is a subjective claim because my best friend can’t prove that this is true. Maybe the girl done something to her boyfriend to trigger the angry emotions that he expressed by yelling at each other or the guy is fed up with the girl because she is too annoying and needy.

Objective Claim: a claim that is not subjective but rather impersonal standards.

Example of an objective claim:
When I went to the gym with my brother today, he told me that he weighs 170 pounds for being 5’10”. This is an objective claim because how much he weighs and how tall he is does not affect me.

Introduction!

Hi everyone,

My name is Anny and I'm going to be a 3rd year in SJSU this fall. I'm currently majoring in Hospitality management and minoring in Psychology. I'm a very bubbly person because I like to always have a smile on my face and stay positive in life. I love animals; especially cute little puppies! I have a small yorkie and he is everything to me. I can honestly say that I have built my communication skills through my job at Banana Republic. I always have to communicate with customers in a positive/professional manner and it's really challenging if the customer has a negative attitude. My hopes for this class is that I get to achieve a more effective way in communication through writing and speaking. This summer, I hope I get to go to Vegas again :) I love the buffet and shopping there!