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.