Useful?

A concept that I found useful is the Slippery Slope Argument from chapter 6. It is a bad argument that uses a chain of conditionals; one may be doubtful or false. The reason why I found this useful to identify is because so many people unknowingly use them. These people can even include parents! In regards to my mother, it is a cultural thing. Being an Asian American, I find my mom's culture difficult to understand. I was born and raised here in San Jose and my mom was raised in the Philippines. Our cultures clash and during one of our many arguments, I found her using a Slippery Slope Argument. Back when she was a teenager, dating was unheard of. "You could not date until you were married", my dad would always joke about. But when I started dating, my mom a little hesitant at first about giving me more freedom to go out. To her, dating young was not something to be encouraged because she grew up believing that it would embarrass the family. She believed that if you dated, you would get pregnant, and you would have to give up school. The reason why this is a slippery slope argument is because dating does not automatically mean pregnancy. And pregnancy does not always mean you become a high school dropout. I am so glad my dad understands the younger generation's culture because if he did not, my mom would not have changed her outlook on dating.

Learned From Chapter 7

From this chapter, I learned about counter-arguments. Regarding raising objections, doing so indicates that an argument is bad. An example of a bad argument is "Letting the kids outside to play is dangerous for their health." The reason why this is a bad argument is because it is subjective; it is based on opinion and is not a proven fact. Another concept I learned was refuting an argument directly. Ways you can do so are by showing that one of the arguments is dubious, or doubtful, showing that the argument is not valid or supported, and showing that the conclusion is false. An example would be "Having a husband seems nice at first because you feel attractive and appreciated. But then as you get older, your looks start to fade and he expresses less interest in you. You let your looks go, so he wants a divorce."

To reduce to the absurd means to indicate that at least one of several claims is dubious or they are collectively unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them. To break it down more clearly, what it means is if one of the claims is doubtful, then the conclusion will be false and vice versa. If an argument is strong but the conclusion is false, then one of the premises is false.

Learned From Chapter 6

From this chapter, I learned about compound claims. At first, I did not think it was something interesting but then I realized that I use them almost every day. A compound claim is composed of other claims but has to be viewed as just one claim (Epstein 113). For example, a compound claim that I find myself using all the time is "I'll pay for the next lunch or just stop by and I'll hook it up with drinks." Obviously, I am not committing to paying my friend back nor am I promising to give out free drinks. I also learned that to make compound claims, the word "or" can link them together.

Another concept I learned about are contradictory claims or negations. The text states that the contradictory has the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances. An example of a claim could be "Harry plays basketball" while its negation would be "Harry does not play basketball." 

Advertisement

The Epstein text says that many advertisements are arguments, with the (often unstated) conclusion saying that we should buy the product. For my example, I chose QuickTrim, a diet pill advertised and endorsed by Kim Kardashian (I LOVE HER). Its conclusion is "How hot can you be?" and its premise being, "if you take the diet pill, you'll get Kim's results." The truth is, everyone is different, everyone feels different, and not everyone is going to love this product. The product has the benefits of losing weight and feeling sexy but there are always side-effects. From what my mom told me (she's an RN), diet pills can ruin your liver and most people know that diet pills should not be used long-term. The advertisement leaves the side-effects out and only focuses on the good things that can happen to a person taking the pill. In regards to Section A of Ch. 5, we can accept or reject the claim, depending on whether or not there is good reason to believe the premise, its premise is more plausible than the conclusion, and the argument is valid and strong. The advertisement (argument) is not strong; how do we know that taking this pill will work for everyone trying to lose weight? Section B touches upon personal experience being the most reliable source of information about the world. In regards to the advertisement, only a person who has taken the product can accept or reject its claim.

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.