Generalizations

Generalization is a topic and idea that comes up in our every day lives. It happens quite often among individuals in many different scenarios. Generalizing occurs when a claim is made about a group from a claim that has some part of it. Though generalization can have good or bad connotations, it is often used, and sometimes in the wrong situations. There are three premises that are required for a strong generalization: the sample must be representative, the sample is big enough, and the sample is studied thoroughly. The idea of a generalization has a similar basis to the idea of making a strong argument. Though a generalization may make a claim about a group or population, there needs to be some margin of error (but not too large) for the population sample. Additionally, there also needs to be a confidence level for the population sample. This level will be larger, closer to at least 95% of the generalization.

What I Liked, What I Didn't Like

My favorite thing or things in this class was actually the group projects. Part of it was the fact that I had such excellent group members. The other part was how effective the group projects made us think and develop our own ideas. We were able to interact with each other through an online class, with very minimal in-person interaction. This demonstrated our ability and potential to communicate with one another, and also showed everybody’s motivation and their willingness to meet deadlines and due dates. I was very impressed with the way our group projects turned out logistically. My least favorite thing about the class was the discussion posts. Sometimes it was tough to come up with ideas just to meet the word requirement. It was also challenging to comment on other people’s posts – sometimes, there just was not too much to be said that was not said already. I also felt the tests were on the challenging side, and did not really reflect what I have actually picked up from the class. Though there were practice exercises in the book, I feel that some sort of test review for the tests would have been an improvement to the class.

What I Learned..

There are quite a few concepts that I have learned over the semester. Constructing an argument that is strong and has the potential to be debated over was a topic that seemed to come up throughout the class. But by demonstrating the different ideas and baseline rules that create a strong argument, I felt that we were able to complete our projects thoroughly and effectively. Additionally, many of the concepts that we were taught in the books and needed to write about in our blog involved real life experiences that occur quite frequently. This helps us to identify what types of ideas are being used in an argument. The chapter on reasoning by analogy and also the discussion of fallacies were quite interesting. It was very easy to adapt these ideas into our blog discussions since it was convenient to provide examples from our every day lives. Although this was an online class, our group projects also taught us how to work with other individuals on projects when our communication is somewhat limited.

Cause and Effect Mistakes

A cause and effect situation can be defined and described by claims. There is a relationship between the two, between the premises and conclusion of either a strong or valid argument. Two mistakes are often seen when evaluating a cause and effect situation. These two are: reversing the cause and effect, or looking too hard for the cause. An example of the first mistake can be seen here:

Bob: The more you shave your hair, the faster and thicker it grows back.
Rich: Why do you think so?
Bob: Well if I shave every day, and I seem to get a 5 o’clock shadow earlier and earlier every day.

Even if Bob is complaining about hair growing back by shaving often, he shaves every day regardless.

The second mistake occurs usually when someone jumps to a conclusion. Sometimes, not everything has a cause. Therefore, looking for a cause may sometimes be a waste if there is not one to begin with.

Mission: Critical

The Mission: Critical website has defines the steps to critical thinking and even has a tutorial which explains the concepts. The website is divided into sections, and consists of 4 main categories: the basics, analysis of arguments, fallacies and non-rational persuasion, and other common fallacies. The website also includes exercise and quizzes to test knowledge of the different fallacies. The purpose of this page is “to create a ‘virtual lab,’ capable of familiarizing users with the basic concepts of critical thinking in a self-paced, interactive environment.” San Jose State University’s Mission: Critical website does exactly what it was designed to do. By creating this web page, it allows students to sign on at any point and review or research any concepts that they are not familiar with. The basics section is an excellent introduction to the concept of critical thinking. Going through these individual pages lets a student grasp the simplest ideas of critical thinking. Browsing further into the subcategories will provide students with detailed explanations to analyzing arguments and fallacies. The web site is very well organized which makes it easy to navigate and find the information that you may be looking for.

Cause Effect Website

The cause effect website dictates a chain reaction scenario in which an accident is caused mainly because of an illegally parked vehicle. The article then reveals that there are two rules to dealing with causations: “the cause must precede the event in time, and even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation.” In the bicycle and truck situation, the insurance companies argue about the primary cause of the accident. Finger pointing is very common in court cases. One party throws the fault on the other, and nobody admits to guilt. It is all about winning the case, and making sure your client comes out on top. But when it comes down to it, what was the initial cause for the accident? If the truck had not parked illegally, the bicycle would not need to swerve into traffic, which caused a chain reaction and resulted in a car rear-ending another car. This article helps to provide ideas which will strengthen an argument, and identify the main cause of a situation.

Analogies

The text book defines reasoning by analogy as a comparison if it is part of an argument. If one side of the comparison draws a conclusion, the other side will conclude with the same. Analogies in the law is something I felt that should have been discussed in detail. One of the example introduced in the text book questions whether or not taxes apply to Internet purchases since mail-order purchases are taxed. This subject seems to be a little confusing, because of the variations of Grey areas when such legislative examples are discussed. The basis behind legal reasoning is reasoning by example. If this is the case, how do you reason with the fact that judges may rule differently depending on how the judge interprets an issue or a law? The book finally lists that even though judges may hold different rulings for similar cases, there are still differences between each individual case which will set it apart from a previous case.

Criteria by Reasoning

There were seven types of reasoning that were discussed in the first question. Out of the seven, I found reasoning by criteria the hardest to provide an example for. Each type of reasoning was clear in the definition, and I had no problems interpreting each of them (that is, if my understanding of each subject is correct). Reasoning by Criteria is quite simple – it occurs when comparisons are used against established criteria to prove a point. In my first question, the example I used was: “How do we know which restaurant is good? Let’s read some online reviews.” I think the most important aspect of this type of reasoning is the fact that you must have an appeal to a common value for the criteria. If the listener can easily relate to the criteria or even share a similar opinion, then it is easier for the argument to be accepted.

Reasoning

1. Reasoning by Analogy – A) The 9/11 hijackers were terrorists. B) The terrorists currently are of Muslim faith. C) All Muslims are terrorists.
2. Sign Reasoning – If you hear a siren, there is most likely some type of emergency near by.
3. Casual Reasoning – The phone rings. Melissa gets up and runs to answer the phone. Melissa trips over the dog and breaks her ankle. Melissa’s injury was caused by the phone call.
4. Reasoning By Criteria – How do we know which restaurant is good? Let’s read some online reviews.
5. Reasoning by Example – I have a dog exactly like yours. He would not stop licking everything in sight when he was young. The solution was to punish him when he was wrong and reward him when he was right.
6. Inductive Reasoning – Every morning, for the past 10 years, my coworker has always neatly covered his car after he arrives in the morning. Tomorrow, he will cover his car.
7. Deductive Reasoning – A) All SUVs are gas guzzlers. B) The Ford Escape is a SUV. C) The Ford Escape is a gas guzzler.

Apple polishing

Apple polishing is an appeal to vanity. It is essentially a negative type of an appeal. In these types of cases, it usually occurs when a reaction or decision is made because of another person’s actions, which usually involves some type of positive aspect towards the person making the decision. In essence, it is basically known as brown nosing, or kissing someone’s behind in order to get the praise or feedback that you want or desire. This happens all of the time in the working world. Many may have experience a situation similar to the one that I am going to describe. “Eddie is a coworker of mine. He is lazy, sloppy, and always late. But he is always complimenting the manager, pointing the blame at others, and making him stand out as a good worker. As a result, he received the largest Christmas bonus and will most likely receive a promotion.” Eddie’s actions have caused the manager to move him up the ladder, because of appeals to vanity.

#6: Appeal to Spite

An appeal to spite is usually used to reject what someone believes has been seen in all the past elections with advertisements that rally against an opposing party. For example, Jerry Brown’s campaign used a brilliant advertisement on television that made the current governor and the Republican candidate, Meg Whitman, seem very unappealing. Jerry Brown’s campaign used an advertisement that contained many audio and visual clips of both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman separately, but each audio segment dictated phrases and sentences that were uttered by both individuals during both of their campaigns. They were 100% matched, word for word. The advertisement then questioned the public if this is what they desired. This was a brilliant smear move towards the Republican campaign – it demonstrated their lack of ability to fix California’s issues, and in essence, broken promises. This argument is an excellent argument, with a very convincing message. Due to the election results, I would say the advertisement did the job it was meant to do.

Appeal to Emotion

An appeal to emotion occurs when a premise dictates that because you feel a certain way, you should believe or do something as a result of that feeling. There are a few different types of appeals to emotion in arguments. These include appealing to pity, appealing to fear, and appealing to spite. Today, appealing to fear has struck me. A friend posted about how he was able to reach speeds of 90 mph on Highway 17. Someone instantly replied and commented about how that could result in his funeral. Car accidents and death are both very serious issues, so it definitely struck my attention. This demonstrates an appeal to fear, because the consequence for the action of speeding could result in an accident, and Highway 17 is notorious for these incidents. Not only that, the road is a dangerous when excessive speeds are reached. This type of driving will only leave more of a chance for possible deaths in the event of an accident.

Blog #3

Common mistakes in evaluating premises is a topic that I found quite interesting. There are a few different major points to this topic: arguing backwards, confusing possibility with plausibility, bad appeals to authority, mistaking the person for the claim, and mistaking the person for the argument. These mistakes happen all the time in every day arguments. Often times, phony reputations are among these types of mistakes. Hypocrisy is also found in arguments. Through personal experiences, one may have met a doctor who has advised against being overweight, and suggested exercise for a patient due to obesity. However, after taking a second look at the doctor, the man making these suggestions is not entirely in good shape himself. Of course, the patient should heed the doctor’s advice as it would be in the patient’s best interest to do so. But how can the doctor set a good example if he cannot follow his own advice? This may make it harder for an argument to be convincing.

Usefulness of First and Second Assignment

Both course assignments are very helpful projects that will aid in our individual futures. By discussing the validity, strengths, and weaknesses of claims, we are introduced to new tools that will help us to evaluate statements that we may come across in our lives. Our group project for assignment #2 discussed the World Wildlife Fund’s latest mission – saving the tiger. The research we have conducted over our project has allowed us to decide whether or not the organization has a reasonable cause to make the claims on their website, and whether or not we should support their claims and their overall mission.

Additionally, both assignments have actually helped with communication skills. With technology playing such a large role in communication for current times, many of us have elected to take an online class for various reasons. But sitting behind a computer screen and communicating to another individual sometimes creates a communication block. There is no physical interaction. By assigning group projects for an online class, it forces the students to communicate effectively and efficiently, for many of us have busy schedules that may be tough to accommodate for one another. This can be carried into future careers, where many large corporations contain many locations in different parts of the world. This group project can give a similar real-world experience on how to work in a team in such an environment.

Chapter 8

Chapter 8 discusses general claims and their contradictories. General claims are a statement or statements that entail a discussion in a general way about a part of or all of an entire group of subjects. But these types of claims are not always true. For example, if one were to say, “I love Red Bull. Red Bull gives me energy and keeps me awake. Therefore, I am a healthy person.” This is quite a stretch. Just because Red Bull does what is stated, and an individual drinks Red Bull, does not automatically mean the person is in good health. There is not enough evidence to support such a claim.

Precise generalities are often seen with stereotypes. This occurs when a general statement is made that lists a quantity, but is not necessarily true. Let’s take a common stereotype: “70% of Asians are bad drivers. I am Asian. Therefore, I am a bad driver.” Regardless of whether or not the statistic is true, this is a general claim. Is it possible that I do not fall into the 30% of Asian drivers that may be deemed a good driver? This is not a strong claim.

Ridicule

The ridicule is often used to refute bad arguments. Generally, ridiculing a bad argument would most likely be offensive, and may even be considered humorous, depending on the sense of humor of the individual of the opponent or the target audience. Ridiculing a bad argument occurs quite frequently in the work place. For example, while working in the Information Technology department and dealing with a virus infected computer, Person A might claim that they have a fix for the virus by completely wiping out the system and starting over. Person B would then refute and discredit Person A by pointing out that formatting the computer would result in the user having the possibility of losing important data. Person A might then retort by saying, “well if I start the entire PC image over again, then the virus would be guaranteed to be cleaned.” While the statement is true, Person A is trying to ridicule Person B by saying that the problem will be resolved – regardless of whether or not the customer is happy or content with the possibility of data loss. Instead of going this route, Person A should find another work around to clean the system of any infected software.

Refuting Arguments Directly and Indirectly

In Chapter 7, we learned that there are two separate ways to refute an argument – either directly, or indirectly. Refuting an argument directly involves one of three criteria: a) you must demonstrate that at least one of the premises is doubtful, b) you must show that the argument is invalid or weak, or c) you must prove that the conclusion is not true. For example, if one were to claim “two kids is the maximum a family like us can handle,” another person could refute the argument directly by pointing out someone else in a similar situation (same sized house, combined salary, etc.) that has five kids and is raising all five with no problems. When an argument is refuted indirectly, one must demonstrate that at least one of the several claims is false. Going back to the argument listed above, one could refute the claim indirectly if the following premise is known: the couple has raised two daughters and they desperately want a son. In this case, one would point out the fact that since it is a must that the family brings a son into the family, they are going to have to try to have more than two children.

Compound Claims and Contradictory of a Claim

Compound claims and contradictory of claims are both mentioned in Chapter 6. A compound claim involves a statement that is made up of more than one claim, but when combined, they are interpreted as a single claim. An example of a compound claim is this: “Unless I end up breaking your chain saw this weekend, I will buy a new Stilh for you. Otherwise, you get your old one back.” In this case, the two claims actually become one single claim, because it will either be option A or option B.

A contradictory of a claim is the complete opposite of the claim that is made, no matter what the circumstance is. For example, if one were to say, “Alex is a moron,” then the contradictory of a claim is the exact opposite: “Alex is a genius.” In this case, the first claim is making an opinionated statement, while the second claim completely disregards the first claim and makes a claim that is directly the contrary of the first.

Bad Appeals to Authority

Bad appeals to the authority occur when a person believes the claims of another individual, because that individual is supposedly an authority or expert on the subject of the claim. This is a fallacy though, and sometimes the individual making the claim may not even have the proper credentials to make a statement of that nature for people to follow.

An excellent example of this is a public figure, specifically the police. They are known for upholding the law, and for making sure that citizens follow the laws that are made by our legislatures. I personally know a few police officers, some of which I am friends with or am simply acquainted with. They have commented that although they are well trained and are here to serve the public and help enforce laws, they are not lawyers. There will be certain laws that may be more complicated than others. Therefore, there have been known cases where individuals have been arrested due to a gray area of a certain law. This is why the United States has the judicial system it has today – for those times of wrongful arrest, so those that are wrongfully accused have their chance in court.

DC, the only shoe I ride.

For this advertisement exercise, I chose a Travis Pastrana DC Shoes advertisement that displays the famous X-Games participant riding a dirt bike with tires made out of DC shoes. Obviously, the wheelset was custom made, as there is no tire on the market that is composed of just shoes. Pastrana is seen jumping the “shoe bike,” and then promptly doing a burnout, which basically results in the destruction of the rear shoe tire. He is then heard stating, “DC, the only shoe I ride.”
Here is a direct link to the advertisement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUfEsJJBUyM

I chose to accept this claim because it is valid. Seeing as how this is probably the first and only “shoe bike” that was ever made, I doubt Travis Pastrana will be riding any other shoes on the market, especially considering the fact that he is sponsored by DC Shoes. Through my personal experience, I have also never observed any shoes being ridden, only worn. Therefore, I think Travis Pastrana’s statement is valid and plausible.

Repairing Arguments

Repairing arguments requires any of the three pieces of criteria to be met in order for a bad argument to be considered repaired. These are:
• the argument needs to become valid or stronger
• the premise is reasonable and would also be reasonable to the other party
• the premise must be more possible than the conclusion

Here is an example of a bad argument that can be repaired: “it was hot today, so the air conditioning will definitely turn on.” To repair this argument, one of the three criteria needs to be met. The argument can become stronger by indicating the temperature that the air conditioning unit will be turned on by, and by comparing that setting to the room temperature. Additionally, if one were to add that it was going to be 110* F at 3:00 in the afternoon, the argument could also be fixed in this manner as that would be considered extremely warm.

The Mentor

What is a mentor? A mentor is a teacher or trusted person who is usually more experienced in a certain field that is willing to share his or her knowledge with a trainee. This trainee is known as the protégé. There are for stages that usually occur during a training instance with a mentor and the protégé. The first stage is the Initiation stage, which begins with both individuals developing a regular relationship. Here, the mentor also starts teaching his or her skills to the trainee. Next, the mentor begins to demonstrate a sign of respect for his or her trainee. This stage is known as the Cultivation stage. In the third stage, known as the Separation stage, the mentor begins to initiate separation between the two individuals. The trainee is ready to step out with less assistance. Finally, during the Redefininition stage, the mentor and the protégé meet again in the group that they are participating in, but this time, they are on the same level with regards to their position.

The Slippery Slope Fallacy

Out of the Content Fallacies that were listed, I will be explaining the “slippery slope fallacy.” A slippery slope fallacy dictates and argues that a chain of events will occur or continue regardless of whether or not the first and later statements are true or false. These types of arguments and statements happen quite frequently in the real world.

An example of this could be the prediction of weather. Just the other day, I overheard the following: “We had a really mild and chilly summer, so this fall and winter will most likely bring a high volume of rainfall.” Not even the best meteorologists have made a claim so far in advance. Unless that particular individual is some type of prophet or psychic, how can one make this assumption and presume it to be accurate? The weather that occurs later in the year could also be as mild as the summer weather.

Argument Exercise

For this post, I chose to analyze the one about the cars in the neighbor’s yard.

1: This is an argument. It starts out with, “My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all of the cars in his yard.” This is making a statement that has a possible opposition, then lists facts to back up why this statement should happen.

2: The conclusion is actually the beginning of the argument.

3: Is there a city law or rule that states the limit of how many cars can have in the yard?
When is the last time the cars moved?

4: All the points after the original claim of the neighbor being forced to get rid of the cars are subarguments.

5: Yes. There is a premise, and there are facts to back up this premise.

I thought this exercise was useful. It allowed me to evaluate and analyze an argument, and look at the example in depth.

The 4 Styles of Leadership

There are four types of leadership styles: authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire. The team leader or decision maker of the group usually determines which type of leadership is used.

An authoritarian leadership indicates that the leader tells the team members how a process should be completed, and what exactly should be accomplished. This type of leadership should be avoided as there is the chance that a group member may have a better idea that should be brought to the leader’s attention.

The consultative leadership is when the decision maker lets the group members dictate their ideas. Afterwards, all of the possibilities are evaluated, and then a final decision is made on which plan to follow. This involves all group members and is better for participation and a broader range of ideas.

Participative leadership also allows group members to share their ideas with the team. However, it differs from consultative leadership because the decision makers do not make the final choice. Instead, the final decision is concluded by all of the members on the team.

Finally, laissez-faire leadership is when the leadership role is at a minimum. The group members will carry out all decisions from beginning to end. This may not be effective, as there should always be some type of team leader to coordinate meeting times and the schedule.

Strong Argument vs. Valid Argument

A strong argument is an argument where there is a chance of the premise being discussed to be true, and the conclusion is false simultaneously. This actually does not happen often. An example of this is if it was snowing, and I commented that the weather is cold. In this case, if there is white powder on the ground, I am dressed in layers, there are goose bumps on my skin, and my ears have nearly frozen off, then this is a strong argument. It demonstrates that there is a possibility that the temperature is on the cold side. But there is also the possibility that the conclusion is false – there is a chance that the sun is out, it might take place in October before the winter, and I may personally be sensitive to colder weather.

A valid argument dictates that there is no possibility that the premises are true and the conclusion is false simultaneously. Here is an example of a valid argument: it has rained over 6 inches in the past hour with the wind blowing at 40 mph, and I am going to be drenched if I attempt to walk across the campus to class today. Since San Jose State has multiple buildings and no umbrella or rain coat is completely water proof from head to toe, I would definitely be soaking wet by the time I got to my destination, especially with that strong of a wind.

A Good Argument?

Epstein’s text lists three different tests for an argument to be good. The first test requires an argument’s assertion to have the possibility of being a case or an occurrence. The second test dictates that the propositions must be stronger than the conclusion of an argument. The third and final test merely suggests that an argument must actually support the intended point or assertion.

Here is an argument that I had recently with another individual: “I bought a Japanese vehicle because they are simply better built than American cars, and it will last longer.” Is this a good argument? It is if it passes the three tests listed in the text. The first test is a success – it is very possible that Japanese automobiles are manufactured with better quality as opposed to American cars. The second test may not be as strong. Is this always the case? What if I brought up a couple of people that I knew who owned Honda Civics with high mileage on them, and actually had the engine fail at 180,000 miles? This can be compared with vehicles that my friends and I have owned, some who have surpassed the 180,000 mile mark, and even a couple who have more than 200,000 miles and are still running strong. But if the opposing side has a list of statistics that ultimately prove that the majority of Japanese cars outlast American cars, then the second test is passed. The third and final test does show that the argument supports the intended point, which is to demonstrate that the American auto industry is lacking in the quality department when compared to the Japanese product.

The Two Claims

Our text book mentions two types of claims. These are descriptive and prescriptive. A descriptive claim will portray exactly what the claim is. A prescriptive claim will order an action or evaluate a person or situation. For example, if my friend came across a pair of sunglasses at work that were unclaimed, I would say, “you should turn the sunglasses into Human Resources so the original owner can reclaim them.” An example of a descriptive claim would be, “I am feeling cold.”

The two claims actually go with each other. A prescriptive claim can follow up with a descriptive one. When a child tells a mother, “I think I feel sick,” this is a descriptive claim. The mother can follow up with a prescriptive claim, such as “let me take your temperature and give you some medication.” Both types of claims are actually basic forms of communication that are used every day in our lives.

"That car is sick!"

I was walking back from lunch with my coworkers one day, when a 1967 Chevrolet Chevelle drove by. We all gawked at the restored classic car as it passed, and then one coworker exclaimed, “that car is sick!” This statement could be considered both vague or ambiguous, depending on who would have overheard the remark. A vague sentence refers to a statement that can have multiple meanings created by the listener. Ambiguous sentences are more defined. Even though an ambiguous sentence may have more than one meaning, the options are limited.

A car enthusiast would most likely consider this an ambiguous meaning. Usually when the word “sick” is used in this context, one would most likely infer that the person who made the remark is complimenting the car. There can only be a few options here, and the connotation would be considered a positive comment.

However, a person who is not very familiar with automobiles may not understand the context of this sentence. The word “sick” may be used in both a positive or a negative aspect. To a non-enthusiast, his or her eyes may just see a 43 year old clunker passing by and perceive it as a pile of junk that needs to be taken off the road. Or, this person may understand that today’s meaning of “sick” could be used in many different ways, including slang terminology. In this case, the sentence would be considered vague because the possibilities of how it could be understood are not limited.

Objective and Subjective Claims

A subjective claim is more along the basis of an opinion – there is no real proof whether or not the claim is right or wrong.  Such an example is this: “Dogs make the best pets ever.”  One can give plenty of reasons why a dog would make an excellent pet, but no amount of reasoning can prove why a dog would be simply the best as opposed to a cat, a horse, or any other domestic animal.

An objective claim is a statement that can be proven with actual facts.  An example could be: “Today is the hottest day of this month.”  This statement can be proven based upon factual information and data by comparing records of average daily temperatures that have been logged for the current month.  However, objective claims can also be proven to be incorrect.  For example, a claim of 2 + 2 = 5 is not true.  One would use proven arithmetic to prove this objective claim to be wrong.

First Blog

My name is Darren Lee and I am a graduating senior seeking a degree in Management Information Systems.  I have basic communication skills and usually am sufficient in communicating in general.  I would like to improve these skills, especially with regards to the workplace and working in teams.

Online classes are great for those of us who work full time.  Out of all the classes I have taken, my only complaint is that you never really meet the instructor in person, which is a little different from the standard class.  The workload can be a little heavy, but having the opportunity to have a flexible schedule is completely worthwhile. 

I look forward to this semester and hope to learn something new!

-Darren