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.