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.