Actually Interesting

What caught my attention is personal experience, specifically that it is the most reliable source of information about the world. We can't all depend on the news or what books tell us because although they may be reputable sources, they may have misconceptions about things. For example, a person living in Vietnam during the war could have witnessed horrific situations and the news covering it, may not have reported it. Does that mean nothing happened? Personal experience is what shapes our world views. One cannot say something did not happen if they themselves were not there. Back in the day, the news, books, magazines, as well as every other source of media were censored in other parts of the world. How do we know that even today, some of what it reported in these parts are not censored? We can only judge and assess certain situations from our own experiences or understand them through the personal experiences of others. We cannot depend on big-name news stations or popular magazines to tell us what goes on in the world. I'm not trying to slam the media because they do help to get the word out on things that happen all over the world but they cannot credit themselves on being experts on the subjects. Only those who experienced them can.

Repairing Arguments

An argument should be repaired if there is no glue to get it from the premise to the conclusion. Too much is missing in an argument so it is difficult to decide what to believe. Arguments can be repaired by adding an unstated premise or an unstated conclusion. When repairing an argument, it needs to become stronger, its premise more plausible (must also seem more plausible to the person who is trying to be convinced), and the premise more plausible than the conclusion. Indicator words are good to use because they tell us the role of the claim in an argument. Conclusion indicators include "so, therefore, hence, consequently" etc. and premise indicators include "since, because, given that," etc.

My example of an argument: Sharon kept saying she liked my sister's ring. The ring is now missing. So, Sharon must have stolen it.

Obviously, my argument is not a good one. There are many other reasons for the ring to be missing. If I was to argue this with another person, the other person could say, "So Sharone liked your sister's ring...does that automatically mean she stole it?" When there is a room for a comment to counter my argument, the argument needs to be repaired. But in some cases, adding more premises does not help. For example, a premise such as "Sharon was the last person in the room to see the ring before it disappeared" is not a good one because it still does not make it valid that she stole the ring. Adding more premises still does not bring a disbelieving person to the conclusion; therefore, it cannot repair the argument.

Not That Interesting...

but it's something that can relate to me so why not talk about it? It's from the Group Communication text and it specifically has to do with Relationships between Superiors and Subordinates. The text talks about how most conversations between managers and employees are work-related. They are conversations like how to do certain tasks, work ethic, etc. The reason why I wanted to talk about this is because when I talk to my bosses, about 60% of the conversations are work-related while the other 40% just has to do with personal interests. One of the most talked about work-related things are rude customers and the stupid/funny things they do-this does have to do with work in general because for my jobs, it's all about customers. But once in awhile, we talk about our personal lives/interests. The section in the text also talks about how mostly employees speak to one another. This is continuing to increase because many workplaces put employees in teams or they work with one another as opposed to working alone. Communication is key when conversing with other co-workers as well as with superiors.

Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion

Almost everyone has used a fallacy in their favor-whether it be to make someone feel guilty for doing or not doing something or just to get your point/argument across to make it seem like you're right and the other person's wrong. In some cases, it's common to be irrational when expressing a fallacy. A good example would be Strawman. Basically, what it means is turning the tables on the other person and acting irrational. You can either use the other person's words against them or put words in their mouth, making it seem that they're the bad guy(s). By doing this, the other person finds that he or she has to defend himself or herself because of the way you're "attacking" them.

An example of the Strawman would be a girl who wants to hang out with her boyfriend but he's too tired from work to hang out. Using a fallacy, she would say something like, "Okay, fine, then you don't have to see me this whole week since you're tired from work." By saying this, she not only uses her boyfriend's words against him but she acts irrational when in reality, people do get tired. Just because he was too tired to hang out doesn't mean she can act immaturely and selfishly or that he doesn't want to see her at all. By the way, this example is NOT of me-I've actually seen some of my friends act like this, haha. I guess nowadays, girlfriends act more psycho than they should.

Structure of Arguments

I chose the second example to analyze. I think that one side could argue that if he or she is five minutes late in leaving for school in the morning and there is heavy traffic, stopping for breakfast would not be a problem because he or she is already late but then there is also the argument that he or she is only five minutes late and it is not absolutely certain that this person will be late for school. Traffic could possibly clear up. Additional premises are needed because it only says, "...I'll be late for class. So I might as well stop and get breakfast." This also happens to be the conclusion. It does not give any other possibilities of what may happen if he or she is late or if he or she decides to skip breakfast and head straight to school, regardless of leaving home five minutes late. There is no subargument. I do not think this is a good argument because there are so many other possibilities to consider that you cannot just assume that "because this happened, this will happen". It is a valid argument but that does not make it a good one.

I thought this exercise was useful because it makes you think of all of the possibilities of a situation and it helps you to not assume that because something seems the way it is, you should always accept it at face-value. This exercise helps you to think of all of the logical explanations or expectations, rather than thinking that "because this happened, this IS going to happen".

What I Found Interesting...

Well, maybe it's not that interesting but something that caught my attention from the Group Communication text was the concept of laissez-faire leadership. The reason why it caught my attention was because I remember reading about it in high school in my U.S. and world history classes and I took three years of French so I know what it means and what it entails. The term means "let do" and this type of leadership was implemented in different parts of the world. Basically, it was a "leadership" that involved very little or no direct leadership. Unfortunately, the laissez-faire leadership has been found to be less satisfying and less effective. Obviously, it's because if the "leader" actually lives up to what the name means, then there is no way to solve problems among otheres. Therefore, the citizens had the right to do what they wished without being judged or dictated, even if their actions are wrong. I didn't think that the course would touch upon terms that I learned from other classes, especially ones from high school.

Strong vs. Valid Arguments

Valid Argument 

Epstein states that an argument is valid if there is no way for its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false at the same time. A valid argument incorporates logical thinking. A valid argument must have a true premise which would then make its conclusion true. As stated from Epstein, "The conclusion follows from the premises" which means that the argument is valid or strong.

An example would be: Every student who wishes to apply for the nursing program at SJSU must pass all of his or her GE courses and prerequisite classes in order to be considered for acceptance into the program. Chanel has been accepted into the nursing program. She must have passed all of her required courses for the program.

There would be no possibility of me not passing my GE courses and prerequisites and getting into the program because one of the strict criteria of the Nursing Program at State requires that these courses be passed. There could be no other reason otherwise for me to get into the program.

Strong Argument 

An argument is strong if the premise is true but its conclusion is false at the same time. But this possibility is unlikely. The conclusion has a possibility of being false.


An example would be: Jennifer got a tattoo without her parents/guardians present. Only 18 and over are considered legal to get tattoos and piercings without parental consent. She must be 18.


Though the premise is plausible, the conclusion could be false. For all we know, Jennifer could have gone to a tattoo shop where they don't card or the employees could have forgotten to check. It would seem logical to believe that she was 18 or over if she got a tattoo, not needing anyone's permission but there's always a small possibility that she wasn't 18; she was just forgotten to be carded.

Good or Bad Argument

Working at the mall in the food court sucks. There are a lot of filipinos in the area and they are attracted to the store because it serves homestyle filipino food. It gets busy and customers can get irate. They cut in front of others, they also get easily irritated if you simply mishear what they order, and they make you feel inferior if you don't know how to speak tagalog. They look at you with disgust or disappointment if you tell them you're not filipino because to them, why should non-filipinos be working at a filipino eatery? The majority of the customers are rude; therefore, all filipinos are stuck-up.

Analysis: I think the argument is strong but it isn't a good one. The premise is plausible in saying that a majority of the customers are rude because this may in fact, be true, but it doesn't support the overall conclusion that filipinos are all stuck-up. Though the premise may be plausible, it doesn't support the conclusion of filipinos being stuck-up. This means that the conclusion isn't plausible though the premise may be. It's greatly bias towards to assume that filipinos are stuck-up just because the majority of the filipino customers have been rude. This is no concrete evidence nor logic to the remark that ALL filipinos are stuck-up. The argument is not valid; filipino customers may be rude but that doesn't validate the assumption that all filipinos are snobby. One cannot soley base his or her opinion about filipinos based on experiences from certain filipino customers.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking allows an individual to question things, to see things from different perspectives. It means not accepting what may seem to be true at face-value but to come up with the many different possibilities or reasons for why events take place, why people are who they are, or why things seem what they seem. For example, one may assume that if something is missing, the person who seems more likely to steal things is automatically guilty. If one was thinking critically, he or she would think of all of the possibilities that may have taken place, rather than assuming that only one person is responsible. Critical thinking gives a person a chance to enhance his or her way of approaching problems with different solutions. The concept can apply to a broad range of things such as using it to solve math problems or using it to write a 10-page history paper. For many people, critical thinking comes naturally-they do it without even thinking about doing it. It involves looking at situations, people, and things from different view points instead of using one's own opinion as fact.

Ambiguous Sentence

I work at a tea shop in San Jose and lately, sales haven't been that great. I've only been working there for about six months but from what I'm told by senior employees, sales used to be over-the-roof up until about a year ago. I guess  because the economy's been suffering, people haven't been buying drinks at the store as much as they used to. Anyway, all of the employees (myself included) give away free drinks to family and friends or even take as many as we'd like and because there are at least ten employees on staff, all of the free drinks we've been giving out or taking have started to become noticeable, or so I heard from one of my coworkers. During a conversation, he told me that our boss was looking at inventory and that we were for some reason, running out of straws so quickly but they weren't matching up with the sales from day to day. My coworker then told  me that our boss said, "I guess people are stealing straws..." I wouldn't say this sentence is vague but more ambiguous. She could have meant that people (customers or people who are just walking around) are actually stealing straws from our store (straws are located on the outside of our counter, meaning anyone is free to take as many straws as they'd like) or that people are stealing straws, these "people" being us, the employees.