Final Week, Question #3

One concept that have stuck with me throughout the semester even though we've learned about a handful of them would have to be how to determine whether or not an argument was valid/invalid, and strong/weak. For some reason, this seems to be the one thing that sticks out the most to me, I think partly because of how confusing it all was to me in the beginning. Unlike some of the easier terms, where I read about and got right away, I had to do some additional questioning and research to fully understand this one. I believe that this was the most confusing to me because sometimes it was hard to determine whether or not an argument is valid, invalid, strong or weak due to the premises given to us. Some of the premises seemed to counter with each other, thus making it a bit hard to understand. Even though this caused me the most trouble in learning, it stuck to my brain like glue. Now, if someone were to ask me how to determine of an argument or conclusion are any of those things, I would have no trouble explaining to them how to determine this.

Final Week, Question #2

The one thing that I absolutely loved about this class would have to be meeting with some of my classmates in person. Although one or two of us didn't exaclty get along at first, we all have learned to cooperate and get on each other's good side after meeting again a few times after. I know that being enrolled in an online class means not seeing your professor nor classmates, but I thought it was really nice to meet some of them in real life, especially the ones that I got along with great! It made doing the group projects super fun, a lot easier, and a lot less stressful. Despite that fact however, the main thing that I didn't really like about this course was how we had to post our blogs a certain number of hours apart. Although I get the professor's reasons for having this rule upon us, it was really inconvenient at times when I have somewhere to go or something to do. Also, it was a lot harder to maintain the blog than I thought it would be, mainly because of the same reason. Sometimes, I would forget all about blogging until the last minute, and the certain number of hours apart rule would make me miss out on one or two blogs, therefore deducting my weekly discussion participation points, which was not a good thing. Overall, I thought this course was fun, and kept me on my toes sometimes. It was a lot harder to earn an A than I thought, but I'm glad I had to work for my grade. Thanks Professor Carol!

Final Week, Question #1

From this class, I've learned many interesting terms and concepts. These concepts include the different types of leaderships, fallacies, and many more. Without this class, I don't think I would ever look into these concepts even if I passed by it through a reading or if someone mentioned it to me. Yet because we were required each week to not only read our two textbooks, but to post blogs to analyze and discuss each of these terms, I was able to understand them very well. In addition to that, I think our professor did a great job in reinforcing that we've fully understood these concepts by giving us links and exercises to participate in. I like how she also further explained these concepts in her own way for most (not every) week. Those chunks of information given to us did clarify some of the confusion I had with a few concepts along the way throughout the semester. I really liked how informative this class was. I feel like these terms were somewhat of list of vocabulary words we had to learn in English classes a few years back, and how they would come into play if we were to ever discuss the matters of communication. I also liked the fact that not all of these terms are useless, and that we didn't just learn them to get an A in the class. These terms are relative to real life and how we live everyday because it has to do with communication, and a majority of us communicate every day of our lives. Therefore, the things we've learned and practiced throughout the course can be of great use and help when we're struggling with communication or having trouble expressing ourselves.

Interesting Concept

One interesting topic that caught my attention that we have not yet discussed would be reversing cause and effect. Reversing cause and effect is what people tend to do when they mix one for the other, or that they believe B caused A just because B happened right after A. For an example, a student runs into a black cat, who crosses her path during her walk to school in the morning. Being superstitious, the girl automatically reflects on what possibilities running into a black cat will cause her. Soon, her day is filled with bad news: failing a test, being late to a class, and forgetting to do a homework assignment that was worth as much as about a test for her math class. After each of these events, the girl would get more fustrated and blame the black cat from earlier on the day and think that all her misfortune throughout the day was caused by this creature. However, she got things mixed up. It's true that although while some superstitions may coincedently be true, this one needs a little more logic: forgetting her homework assignment had nothing to do with the cat-- she forgot to do it the night before, which took place even before she crossed paths with the cat. Failing her tests only means she did not take precaution and study for her exam the night(s) before it took place, a cat cannot be blamed for procrastination. Being late to her class may have resulted from several different things: some stuff came up, or she walked extra slow: therefore she did not make it to class on time. However, this is an example of reversing cause and effect because this girl would then go home and think that she failed her test, was late to class, and did not bring her assignment all because of the black cat bringing her bad luck, which we can all see that is not the case!

Mission Critical Website

This website was very useful to me considering the fact that it gives an overall summary of most of the things we've learned and gone over throughout the course. For an example, it reviewed each of these topics: emotional appeals, inductive and deductive arguments, and different parts of an argument such as validity, premises, conclusion, vagueness, and ambiguity, to name a few. The one subject that I found most interesting, however, would be found at the very bottom of the website: the link labeled as the post hoc fallacy. As I've explained in my previous post, post hoc means "after this, therefore because of this." I liked how the writer used several different examples of post hocs, and gave explanations for each. The one that stands out to me most would be the last two paragraphs of his summary: how bad luck was taken as an example of people believing that certain things happen because they happened to walk under a ladder, or stepped onto the sidewalk cracks. Like the author said, bad and good luck happen to people regularly, people just tend to believe there is a link between the two when there really isn't. In the last paragraph of his review, he mentioned an example the barometer dropping because the atmospheric pressure has dropped. Because of this, rain would fall. Since some people who have not thoroughly thought things through would believe in the path of a post hoc fallacy, they would argue that the barometer dropping caused the rain. But if you were to sit down and think things through, you could see that this argument would be invalid and unreasonable. How can a barometer cause a weather change?

Cause and Effect Reading Exercise

I found this reading exercise to be fairly informative. I like how the one example that the author chose to explain this concept lasted throughout the explanation. In other words, in the many directions that the author went to analyze, explain, and critically scrutinize the given example relates to every part of this one example to the core, and that the author didn't have to go and use another example as he's digging further into his analysis. As the author goes deeper and branches out from the topic, I think the one think that strikes me as interesting is how he showed that all the arguments from the lawyers result in a pattern: that indeed they're all blaming each other, pointing fingers at the causation that happened before the person they're defending. In fact, the author points out that although they're blaming different things/people/factors, it all comes down to one thing: that it was the TRUCK that caused this whole thing, not the many things that came after it, such as the bicyclist swerving, or that driver number one braking hard. In addition to that, I found it useful that the author connected this very example to the "post hoc" term, which is something I learned not too long ago, in my English 1A class last semester. Pos hoc, which in long terms is also known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc, means that "after this, therefore because of this." What this really means is that just because B comes after A, B caused A. This relates to the example because it reinforces what the author is trying to explain to us all: that the lawyers believed that this scenario is one that can be described by using this term, that since the accident that happened before their defendant is what caused everything. However, that is not the case. As the author is trying to prove, all of this happened simply because of the truck, not any of the factors that happened after it.

Not Discussed: Appeal to Vanity

One concept I found fairly interesting would be the appeal to vanity. This appeal targets a person's specific feelings of self esteem. Although this concept sounds confusing, it really isn't. In short, it's basically a strategy to make someone feel good about themselves, by either sugar coating what you say, or by flattering them. By doing this, a person's feelings towards that specific thing/person may change from negative to positive. For an example,

Yolanda: "I'm so mad at you, why did you take my car without asking me?"
Bunga: "I'm sorry, I just thought I'd take it out to run some errands."
Yolanda: "Yeah, well you could have asked me you know."
Bunga: "I was, but I also decided to do some fixing- up to your car along the way as a surprise."
Yolanda: "What fixing up?"
Bunga: "After my errands, I washed it and vacuumed the inside for you. Everything's spotless now!"
Yolanda: "Wow ! Thanks... I guess it was okay for you to take my car after all. I haven't even checked my car yet, but what a pleasant surprise."
Bunga: "Yeah, that's why I didn't want to say anything, I wanted you to see for yourself!"
Yolanda: "That's very sweet of you... just remember to ask first next time okay?"
Bunga: "Okay."

In this example, Yolanda was mad at Bunga for taking out her car without asking for her permission first. However, after Bunga brought up the fact that he took her car out to get washed/vacuumed, that anger and negativity she had towards him changed into something positive. In this very example, Bunga got himself out of the dog house by "Brown-nosing" Yolanda, flattering her in a way by pointing out what good things he did for her car even though he took it without asking first. What he did was an appeal to vanity, turning her negative attitude towards that subject into something neutral, or even positive in the end. This strategy is a good one to be used when you want to get out of trouble, or if you simply need an easy way out of a hard time. It works!

Objective 3

The objective that I'm choosing to talk about would be objective 3. This objective, similar to the post before this, has to do with the appeal to fear. In this objective, the exercise is to find an advertisement that appeals to fear. Then, it asks whether or not that advertisement uses a good argument. So for my case, the advertisement I found would be : http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist34/advertisements/fear%20ads/pages/rogaine_jpg.htm . In this advertisement, fear is used to strike the hearts of men who have a fear of losing hair, or have genetics where hair is loss as they grow older. As you can see, this advertisement provides why Rogaine is the solution to hair loss. The picture shown is a younger male with a head full of hair, versus an older male in the background who is bald. On the side, there is a paragraph that strikes the emotion fear in men, talking about how the older males in their families may be bald, and how they don't have to go down that path. Along with that, that fear is reinforced with other emotions: with their self esteem and how better looking they can be with hair versus without. Because of this, the advertisement has a good argument. They provided fear in men using two strategies: observations of those around them who have the same blood line / genes, and persuasion of how their looks may improve. Therefore, I think Rogaine did a great job with this advertisement.

Appeal to Emotion: Fear

In this chapter, there are three types of appeal that are related to emotion: fear, spite, and pity. The main appeal that strikes me would be the appeal to fear. The reason why this appeal sticks out to me most is because I believe fear makes people do irrational things beyond belief. For an example: the series of SAW movies. The mastermind behind the life or death games strikes the emotion of fear in people, thus making them go out of their way to win the game and survive. Others, on the other hand, get too scared and end up killing themselves in the process. In these movies, you can clearly see that fear is the main emotion that everything wraps around. It is what causes people to do things they normally would never do in order to survive or move onto the next challenge.

In my personal experiences, fear would be the most powerful appeal in the three given ones above. If I were placed in a situation where my worst fears came true, I would most likely do anything and everything to get rid of that fear, even if it means the irrational: such as those "players" in SAW games. They go as far as killing people, injuring themselves, shedding blood, and going through painful challenges just to survive: all because of fear. Therefore, fear is what strikes me most in the three. Pity may be another strong emotion, but I think fear would push people further than pity would.

Further Discussion.......

One concept that I still feel as if I have not properly understood would be to determine whether or not an argument is good/bad, strong/weak, valid/invalid. I feel as if I have a general understanding, but nothing too in depth. Although I can differentiate between any of those listed, I don't think I can really explain it thoroughly to someone who doesn't, meaning I, myself, still don't fully understand those concepts well enough to teach it back to someone.

As of right now, these are my understandings between each distinct term:
STRONG/WEAK ARGUMENT: A strong argument has premises that supports the claim, while a weak one has premises that also support the claim. However, the strong argument has premises that show how the claim/conclusion is for sure correct, while the weaker argument has premises that may be counterclaimed against.
VALID/INVALID ARGUMENT: A valid argument has an argument that is logical and makes sense. The premises given are all threaded together to make sense and prove that the claim is true. An invalid one has claims that are not true, or the logic doesn't add up so that the conclusion is true.
BAD/GOOD ARGUMENT: A good argument is somewhat similar to the 2 pairs above. A good argument includes premises that are true, and is hard to argue against while a bad one gives illogical thinking and reasoning, and can easily be argued against.


After doing some research, here are the links I've come up with that might further someone's understanding of these things. After reading through these websites, my understanding of these things are a bit clearer than what they used to be.

strong/weak: http://teachers.sheboygan.k12.wi.us/tgentine/documents/StrvwkArg7_1.pdf
valid/invalid: http://kslinker.com/VALID-AND-INVALID-ARGUMENTS.html
bad/good: http://www.springerlink.com/content/xqgr4816p6ftu63e/

Useful Course Assignment

Of the two major group projects that we've worked on, I found the most recent one to be the most helpful/useful. I think it is better than the second one because it helps us understand more about social organizations that are there for the public. From this second course project, I've learned a lot more about the American Cancer Society than I ever knew about. Before doing research on this organization, I knew only the surface deep about them, just the general things. However, after completing this project, I feel like I know a lot more about them in depth and can use that to my advantage later on in life if it were to ever come up again, or if I needed it later in life myself. Although the first project helped us understand what's going on around us (news and politics), I feel like that's just knowledge in general. On the contrary, knowledge on social organizations may come in handy when you know where to go if you were in need for a certain situation that those organizations support and help. Also, I liked the second group project more because it went by a lot faster and wasn't as much of a challenge to do. For some reason, I had a harder time completing the first assignment than I did for the second one. Therefore, not only is the second assignment a lot more useful, but a lot more convenient for students such as myself to complete.

Chapter 8: 2 Things Learned

The first thing that I learned that I found remotely interesting was where Chapter 8 evaluated general claims. This part was called "Vague Generalities," and in this area, the words "some" and "all" are being discussed: All meaning whole and some meaning part. Most people tend to confuse these two, substituting "all" for the word "some," when it means two completely different things. For an example, my little brother told me, "All of these fruits are nasty!" when I made him eat some for his daily dose. Since he generalized every type of fruit into his sentence by saying "all" instead of "some," this makes his argument invalid. If he were to replace all with some, then his argument would've been a better one: that some fruits are not good while others are.

The second thing I learned from this chapter has to do with these arguments' contradictions. The opposite of these arguments are usually weak and invalid; an example of this would be:
"All math classes give at least 2 hours of homework a day."
"Sharon's class always gives at least 2 hours of homework a day."
"Sharon's class is a math class."
This is a weak argument because you do not know for sure whether or not the class Sharon is taking is a math class. Just because her class gives 2 hours of homework a day like the other math classes does not automatically mean hers is a math course as well. One way to make this argument a valid, strong one would be to write it like this:
"All math classes give at least 2 hours of homework a day."
"Sharon is taking a math course."
"Sharon is given at least 2 hours of homework a day."
From this, you can easily see how much stronger the argument is, and how it is easily made into a valid one instead of a weak, invalid one that it originally was.

Conditional Arguments

One concept I found that was fairly interesting would be valid and weak forms of arguments using conditionals. In this area of discussion, the author talks about how if an argument has premises that are true/valid, then there is no way the conclusion cannot be true. As we've discussed before, this topic is similar to what we know: the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are all true. For an example,

"University parking garages requires parking permits for every vehicle. If you do not have one, then you need to purchase one. Vehicles in these garages without parking permits will receive a fine or ticket."

"Abby uses her university's parking garage often. She would purchase daily parking passes, but forgot to one day when she was in a rush. Abby ended up getting a parking permit."

From this example, you could see that the premises are true; university parking garages all require parking passes, and vehicles that do not have one will receive tickets. Related to the real life example, Abby got a parking ticket for forgetting to purchase a parking pass. In conclusion, you cannot state those same premises and then conclude that you won't get a parking ticket.

chapter 7: Refuting Directly vs. Refuting Indirectly

According to Epstein, there are three ways to "refute" an argument. The first step would to be to prove that one of the premises is "dubious." The second step to "refuting" an argument would be to show that the argument is weak or invalid. The third and final step would to prove and show that the conclusion to the argument is not true. All of these steps equal up to refuting an argument DIRECTLY. An example of how to do so would look like this: "Jack is a stubborn kid, so no one likes him. He likes to talk back to people, and it's very hard for him to change his mind" A way to refute this directly would be to simply state back, "Just because someone is stubborn does not mean people would not like them. A lot of people can be opinionated and hard-headed and still be in favor by many people." The first statement is a very weak one, and could be easily argued against. Because the premises are flawed, it is easy to point them out and state an opposing argument.

In order to refute an argument INDIRECTLY, however, would be to somehow show that there is no agreement upon the argument without straight up saying it. From the example above, one way to do this would sound a little like, "Jack just has a hard time adjusting his views and seeing two sides to the story. He usually likes to stick to what he knows, therefore usually believing that his way is the right way." From that, the person is not directly saying anything against the first claim. This is more of like a lighter version of opposing the claim, somewhat giving an explanation to hinder any negative thoughts about Jack being a stubborn person.

chapter 6: Compound Vs. Contradictory

First off, what is a compound claim? A compound claim is a compound consisting of several claims put together into one whole sentence. An example of what makes a compound claim would be these two separate claims: She went to the market to purchase tomatoes. She went into her garden to pick her home-grown tomatoes. Now, to combine these claims to make them into a "compound claim," would look something like this: She either went to the market to purchase some tomatoes, or she went into her garden to pick her home-grown tomatoes. The one word that makes this whole sentence what it is (a compound claim), is the word OR. That is the key to making two claims become one to be a compound.

Now, what is a contradictory claim? It is one claim that is then opposed by other, which wholly contradicts the very first claim. An example of this would be: Jennifer is wide awake. One claim that would contradict this would be, "Jennifer is fast asleep." As you can see, someone being awake versus being asleep are total opposites. To say that a person is a awake and then revising your words and saying they are now asleep are two totally different things. If I were to say that Jennifer is awake versus Jennifer is ABOUT to sleep, then that would not be a contradictory claim. Someone who is just ABOUT to sleep would not be the complete opposite from someone who is wide awake. Therefore, being "fast asleep" would be a better fit as an example for a contradictory claim for being "wide awake."

Misleading Advertisements

PLEASE WATCH: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bevJr3Ra84Q

For awhile now, this commercial on tv has caught not only my attention, but also hit my funny bone everytime I see it. Although this advertisement is made to attrach men, I can't help but think that this may be misleading enough to attract women as well. First off, the majority of people who use any sort of perfume or deodorant would recognize the brand name "Axe" as a product for men. However, for those who don't, this commercial may be taken in as something for women to use as well, just because they don't recognize the brand. What I'm trying to say is, the commercial, as you can see, talks about "cleaning ball sacks." Yet to make this commercial proper and PG for kids' discretion, they've literally used different types of balls (soccer, golf) as an example of what they're really implying: men's testicals. If I were among one of the few who do not recognize this brand, I might actually think they're talking about what they're showing on TV: that this product is used for cleaning soccer or golf or any type of sports balls. Advertisements, such as these, make a good example for laughs, yet do not really make much use for what product they're trying to sell. For most who actually gets this commercial, we would think it's witty and a smart way to catch the audience's attention. However, being funny does not always mean being smart.

Repairing Arguments

Example: "History is a tedious subject. Most history classes are long and never-ending. Therefore, you should not take history."

The logic thread in this claim does not flow through as a strong argument. Although there might be some truth to this person's opinions, what's being said is too vague for us to determine whether or not this applies to all history class. For an example, one could question what type of history class we're discussing? Since there are many, the general term "history" does not speak for the different brances of history that we have in schools today. In addition to that,  because this claim seems to be based on strictly opinions, that perspective does not apply to every student. One way to make this argument stronger and a little more valid would be to describe what type of history we're talking about. Second, it would be a bonus to add the little detail explaning why history classes drag on and seems to never stop. At the very end, this person should include several strong reasons why students should not take history if they had a choice. In short, a little more support for this claim would repair it's flaw of being weak.

Fallacies

EXAMPLE: Bad appeal to authority. (Almost) anything that ________ says about _____ is (probably) true.

EXPLANATION: What this fallacy is really saying is how people tend to believe in just about anything a higher figure of authority is saying to them; some more than others. People have a common habit of relying on the source and intaking information that may not always be true, just because it is coming from perhaps an elderly in the family or society's authorative figures (cops, presidents). Although most information given by an officer or a president of the country may be true, it is not guaranteed that it is all 100% factual. A common example of this fallacy would be children; they tend to idolize a certain adult, and believe everything that person is saying or doing is correct. Even if they don't idolize a person specifically, they still go along with whatever they hear/see. For an example: My job is to tutor little kids. If I were to tell a child something is correct, I can guarantee that 99% of them will believe me. There is a slight chance of a few of them questioning me or asking why that specific thing I said is true (even though it isn't), if I just make things up and make the explanation seem valid, they would just void their suspicions and questions and agree to what I'm saying. Most children, however, just go along with it the first time around. If I was explaining something wrong, they would most likely say "oh," without further questions. It seems to me that because I'm their tutor and I'm older than they are, everything I'm saying is correct. And even if they had underlying questions as to why something is wrong/right, and how it doesn't match their instincts, they'd agree with it just because of my position as their tutor.

Structure of Arguments

EXAMPLE #2: I'm on my way to school. I left five minutes late. Traffic is heavy. Therefore, I'll be late for class. So I might as well stop and get breakfast.

ARGUMENT? Yes. The argument here is that because the person is already late, being a little later wouldn't hurt. The claims would be: The person left five minutes late, and traffic is heavy.

CONCLUSION? Since the person is already running late, stopping by for breakfast is alright.

ADDITIONAL PREMISES NEEDED? The person should be adding more details, such as when class starts, and even if they left five minutes late, how late is that in relation to the time they need to be there. Some people may be five minutes late, but then they could still be ahead of schedule because they leave so much earlier than they should be.

SUBARGUMENT: I don't think there is any....but I could be saying one would be that the person is late. The second (subargument) could be whether or not they should stop to get food.

GOOD ARGUMENT?: No, this person did a horrible job with their logic. Just because they are already five minutes late does not make it ok for them to further their tardiness by stopping elsewhere.



*I think this exercise was okay. I was a bit confused when it came to my example, because the argument and conclusion was somewhat similar. I hope it looks okay, I kind of guessed through most of the exercise.

Leadership

While reading through the text, one concept I've found interesting would be the section on leadership, from "The Essential Guide to Group Communication" by Mary O. Wiemann and Dan O'Hair. There are all four types of leadership: authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire. However, the main one that stood out to me would be the consultative leadership. This caught my attenion the most because based on the what's written, there were many things I was unaware of about this leadership. In short, the two paragraphs written about consultative leadership talked about how leaders usually resort to this style just as a "facade," because although they ask for their team members' opinions and ideas, the leaders end up making all decisions alone.

This was of interest to me because I actually did not know there was a term for such thing. Even though I'm aware that there are different types of leadership, it amazes me in a way how there's a separate category for them. I know it seems irrelevant to the topic, but I just thought I'd share this personal thought =).

Strong Vs. Valid

Although strong and valid arguments may both be true, the major difference is that strong arguments sometimes also happen to be false. What makes a strong argument? A strong argument may consist of a plausible premises and a conclusion that might seem just right. However, a valid argument consists of a premises that leads to a conclusion that cannot be anything else. Meaning, the premises is clear cut, and there can only be one conclusion at the end: that there is no other possible conclusion to the given situation.

An example of a strong argument would be, Mr. X and Mrs. Y are math professors at SJSU. They have both received awards of excellency. Each professor's ratings on ratemyprofessor are sky-rocketing, and they have Ph.D's in their area. Every course that they're in charge of fills up as soon as it is posted, with long waiting lists; whereas, there are numerous empty seats in other classes taught by different professors. Conclusion: Mr. X and Mrs. Y are popular amongst the student population.

An example of a valid argument would be: 4^4=256, because 4^4 can be written out as 4x4x4x4. If you were to do the math, 4x4=16. 16x4=64. 64x4=256. Therefore, 4^4=256.

Testing An Argument

EXAMPLE: Ann is in Chem30B, and never studied or did any assigned problems throughout the course. Chem30B is very difficult to pass without studying or doing the assigned problems. Therefore, Ann failed this course.

After the three tests, this argument would be valid because the premises are true, so the conclusion could not be false. However, the given scenario could very well be questioned because the argument is not strong. This argument was bad because we don't know whether or not Ann really failed the course. The assumption that she did could be countered with the fact that she had prior knowledge going onto the course so that she could've easily passed it without having to study or do any practice at all. If the conclusion were to be "Therefore, Ann most likely failed this course," the argument could've been slightly stronger, due to the fact that "most likely" meant there was a chance of her failing, instead of assuming that she really did fail.

Interdependence in Groups

According to Dan O' Hair and Mary Wiemann in "The Essential Guide to Group Commnunication," interdependence is the most beneficial characteristic among a group. In this section, Hair and Wiemann explained what interdependence behavior is, and how it effects a group's effectiveness and efficiency. They also gave an example of interdependence by relating it to an office with a manager, secretary, and employees. If one member does not give the effort to do their jobs correctly, that will bring down the entire group; or in this case, office.

From this topic, I strongly agree with this idea. If a business did not collaborate and work together as a team to promote, sell, and diffuse their ideas/products, the business would then be a failure and eventually collapse. However, interdependence does not only apply to businesses or offices. This term also applies to  "groups" in its simplest form: small or big groups that come together to work on a simple school project, a club in school, or even a sports team. When one member lacks effort and does not contribute the same amount of energy as others (or no input at all), this will bring down the entire team. Whether their role is small or large, a team/group requires effort from every single person. For an example, two semesters ago, I was assigned as a "director" for my group's play in my theater-arts class. In this class, we were divided into several small groups, each having a part as if we were a real theater company: a director, actors, costume designer, props manager, music/lighting tech manager. As a director, it is very important to take charge and make sure each member was on top of their game, being on time for each rehearsal and doing their parts correctly. However, I had a few slackers in the group: people who did not memorize their lines in time, those who showed up late, and others who did not go along with the agreed assignment. This made my job really hard, especially when a play requires huge amounts of input from each station to make it work. From that experience, I've learned exaclty how essential it is for one person alone to obey the rules and follow through with what their responsibilities are. Remember, there is no "I" in "TEAM."

Vague/Ambiguous

For a long while, my mother would always tell me to eat healthy foods. She, being someone who is very careful with her diet and food habits, would always tell me the same things over and over again: "Don't consume foods with too many chemicals, they are bad for you. Try to eat foods that are natural, they are the most healthy." Every time she told me this, I would automatically assume that any type of food with chemicals, or containing artificial ingredients are bad. In addition, every time I came across any label that claims it is "100% natural" or something of that sort would be perceived as something my mother would support me eating. However, it never once crossed my mind that that very statement my mom always reminds me of is very vague, even though it may not seem like it at first. Until a few days ago (during my nutrition class lecture), I never gave it much thought as to what exaclty "natural" is in some of our foods today, and what types of chemicals there are out there.
From my nutrition class, my professor pointed out that not all chemicals are bad. In contrast, not all natural things are good. An example of this would be tobacco. Tobacco is "natural," yet it is the very opposite of being healthy for your body. My professor also noted that everything is made of chemicals. Even us, as human beings, are made of chemicals; therefore proving her point that not all chemicals are necessarily bad. After thinking about it, I guess it's just our ideal stereotype of what chemicals and natural things are, that brings us to thinking every item consisting of chemicals would fall under the "bad" category, and vice versa for "natural" things. Therefore, going back to the very quote that started this whole subject, telling someone to not consume foods with too many chemicals can be interpreted in many different ways. Although from this case, we can all assume that my my mother meant that it was bad chemicals in foods that we should avoid, she should include this in her statement next time so that it wouldn't be too ambiguous. For the second half of that quotation, she should maybe replace the word foods with fruits, and possibly replace natural with organic or healthy to specify what she means. That would make her whole statement entirely different: more specific and detailed.

Subjective Vs. Objective

Subjective claims are basically an expression of belief. Subjective claims, also known as opinions, could not be proven wrong or right. These types of claims are based upon personal preference. An example of this would be my two little brothers and their opinions on video games. According to them, any video game is worthwhile, and considered "fun," or "cool." However, because this is a subjective claim, their personal opinions on video games alone cannot be held accountable for everyone else's. For an example, if you were to ask me what I thought of these types of games, my answer would be the very opposite. Because I have no interest in video games, my subjective claim towards this would be "Video games are boring, end of discussion." Fun? No. Cool? I don't think so. Therefore, subjective claims are solely based on the person responding's beliefs.

Objective claims, on the other hand, are factual claims. One example that just slipped into my mind would be from a kid that I tutor at work. Based on this little third grader, 1/2 is equal to 2/4. When I asked him how he knew this was true, this intelligent boy showed me two ways to get there: by simply reducing through division, or by drawing two pictures of each fraction and comparing them. 1/2 = 2/4 is an objective claim because anyone who is up to this level of math can plainly see (and agree to) this kid's claim. 1/2 is indeed equivalent to 2/4, and can be proven through the two simple methods that was given above. Bottom line, objective claims are claims that can be supported.

Introductory Post

My name is Jennifer Quang. Although that's my real name, about 90% of everyone I know calls me Abby. It's a weird transition, from Jennifer to Abby (many have asked how and why); but to make the long story short, it's been a nickname I've had since the fifth grade. As you can see, it stuck until now. I'm majoring in pre-nursing, and this would be my second year at SJSU. The only communication studies experience I've had so far would be a speech class I took last semester, comm20. Besides from that, I don't do a lot of public speaking. This would be the first time I'm taking an online course. This semester, however, I took the risk of taking two, all the while not knowing how it'll all turn out, and how difficult it may get (as I've heard). From this class, I'm looking forward to gain the ability to further my critical thinking skills and communication skills to better my education. Although this is all online, I'm hoping the amount of interaction and discussions required will be food for my brain. Other than that, I'm honestly hoping that this class won't be too difficult or time consuming. Outside of school and work, I take interest in spending time with people I care about. I like to surround myself with the people who matter, and have good times and memories together. That's all for now.