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.