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.