My last post

Back in chapter four of the Epstein book there is a short discussion of when not to repair an argument because it is unrepairable. When an argument is unrepairable it usually exhibits these similar traits outlined in the book such there being no argument, the argument has nothing to add, a premise is false, two of the premises contradict one another, the obvious premise that needed to be add would make the argument weaker, the premise needed is false, or the conclusion is false. The book gives an example of an unrepairable argument about alcoholism and how it is a disease that people can overcome within themselves but wants more treatment center to be built. The two claims that alcoholism and treatment centers should be built contradict each other, which is one of the things that makes an argument unrepairable. When an argument contradicts itself within its claim it is fair to say that the argument is no good and is unrepairable.

Margin of Error and Confidence Level

I found the discussion of margin of error and confidence level in chapter 14 interesting. It makes a lot of sense to me because I am learning about it in my stats class and I can relate to the numbers and logic that Epstein discusses in the book. An example given in the book is about an opinion poll taken by voters that had a margin of error of 2% and a confidence level of 95%. Confidence interval means in this situation that there is a 95% chance of the poll that was to be taken the next day would turn out to be 53% with a plus minus of 2% in favor of the incumbent and 47% with a plus minus in favor of the challenger. Analyzing the data we can see that there is a good chance of this happening with the estimated range given of the percent of votes since there is a 95% confidence interval. If the confidence interval was replaced with 60% then this information would not be reliable because there is a 40% chance that the data collected would be wrong.

What I learned this semester

This semester in COMM41 I learned a lot through the reading of Epstein's book, the red Group Communication book, and the exercises offered on blackboard. What I will probably take away most is the useful skill of thinking out of the box when breaking down arguments. I learned what makes a good argument and a bad argument and why they are good or bad. The group essays helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses working in a group. One of the weaknesses I learned from the group essay as well as the online posting weekly was that I tend to put things off until the final hours. It creates an unnecessary stress that could be avoided and will definitely try to improve on that. One interesting concept that I learned from the reading is the cause and effect logic of things. Even though something occurs after an event it doesn’t necessarily mean that the previous event caused it. The event that occurred after the first could have been influenced by many other things. Overall I learned how to communicate with my peers in words better than I did before this semester.

Mission Critical

The Mission Critical website was useful because it provide in depth information on the specifics of making an argument. It goes over a lot of what our Epstein book covers but with more detail and examples. I really like the way the website was set up so that it defined the concept first then gave examples. After the examples were given it also explained how the concept was incorporated into the example. The outline that the website was set up in was also very useful. It mapped out the website and where everything was clearly. The exercises that followed the short summary on the specific concepts also let me work hands on with the concept so that I could really grasp it. For me the most interesting concept that I must have missed in the reading was called Ad Hominem that the website explains how the argument is against the person. I thought reading through that was really interesting.

Cause and Effect Excercise Link

The cause and effect website reading provided a useful learning method in a concept discussed in chapter 15 of our book. I like the example given in this link because it was different from the other one in the book. It provided a secondary learning tool from the book discussing cause and effect. What I found really interesting was the pos hoc reasoning. An example that the website explains is when John feels he is about to hiccup he takes a deep breath. A bad argument would be that the hiccup causes the John to hold his breath. Although the hiccup does precede John holding his breath, it is not necessarily the cause. The cause in this situation would be John thinking he is about to hiccup. I found this interesting because it is something I never thought of but when broken down really makes sense. I learned from this reading that even though something precedes or even follows an event it is not necessarily connected by cause and effect.

Cause and Effect in Populations

Chapter 15 discusses how cause and effect can support a claim. The example given in the chapter about smoking is a good example. The claim is that smoking causes cancer. Although researchers can not directly link the cause of cancer to smoking but only link that smoking increases lung cancer there is no definite proof. There are other causes of cancer that are lifestyle choices including diet and exercise. Although there is no direct link to cancer and smoking researchers can only claim that there is a high probability of cancer if a person is smoking. This is an example of how a population that has no direct proof of result but only a high probability can lead to a cause and effect claim. I thought this was useful because although there I never thought that something like high probability and having a direct proof is different. As I read and thought about this section in the chapter I realized that there is a big difference but both methods work in supporting a claim.

Cause and Effect in Populations

Chapter 15 discusses how cause and effect can support a claim. The example given in the chapter about smoking is a good example. The claim is that smoking causes cancer. Although researchers can not directly link the cause of cancer to smoking but only link that smoking increases lung cancer there is no definite proof. There are other causes of cancer that are lifestyle choices including diet and exercise. Although there is no direct link to cancer and smoking researchers can only claim that there is a high probability of cancer if a person is smoking. This is an example of how a population that has no direct proof of result but only a high probability can lead to a cause and effect claim. I thought this was useful because although there I never thought that something like high probability and having a direct proof is different. As I read and thought about this section in the chapter I realized that there is a big difference but both methods work in supporting a claim.

Proof of Substitute

Proof substitute is a phrase that suggests that the speaker has proof, but really there is not proof that is provided. This type of bad argument is always something that comes up when we are arguing with friends and family out of frustration. Other forms of proof substitute are also ridicule and burden of proof. Ridicule is when that the claim that is presented is obviously wrong and perceived as laughable. Shifting the burden of proof is a clever method that a speaker will use when they have not evidence to back up their claim. Instead of the speaker trying to defend their claim with evidence, the speaker tells the person listening to find evidence that their claim is false. Both of these types of bad argument techniques raise the question of asking where the proof is. The purpose for a speaker using this technique is so that they can make themselves sound believable without having any evidence whatsoever.

Appeal to pity

Affirmative action is an intentional bias in selecting a person based on their ethnicity, age, social status, physical disabilities, or military career for selection in things like jobs. A bad argument in favor for affirmative action that appeals to pity would make the person listening to the argument feel bad for the potential people that are picked because of their ethnicity, social class, etc.

Affirmative action should be taken into effect immediately. I think that affirmative action is fair, because it allows minorities to have a fair opportunity in things like employment. Affirmative action helps minority groups that do not get enough voice. Everyone who is a minority should be helped. If affirmative action was never in place than minority groups would never have a chance at a good job or health care and be jobless with no good doctors when they are sick.

There are many holes in this argument with no proof or logic. This argument makes the reader feel bad for the group of people that affirmative action would not be helping if it were not taken into effect and that is the only argument that is presented.

Appeal to Emotion

Appeal to emotion is probably the most often used by every organization that asks for donations to help the needy. While this technique is not an unethical thing to do, it is definitely a fallacy when trying to make an argument correctly. Appeal to emotion offers no evidence but uses appeal similar to fear, pity, or spite. The appeal of emotion that strikes me mostly is probably the appeal to fear. I sometimes catch on TV a car insurance commercial that always shows someone getting into a terrible car accident. Without the proper insurance the person’s car was severely damaged and her day was ruined by a car that rolled down the street and hit her parked car. It shows the lady terrified that her car had been hit. The commercial then proceeds to show how things would have been different if she was a customer of this particular car insurance, which had the effect of her not even missing a minute of her busy day due to the car accident. Companies and organizations effectively use appeal to emotion to get you into whatever they are selling or stand for. It is not necessarily a good way to argue but it does make you think twice about their product.

Checking for validity with diagrams

Chapter eight discusses how to check validity with diagrams. There are several steps on checking whether an argument is valid. The checks that a diagram must go through are that a collection must be an enclosed area, one premise is entirely related and within another, if there are comparisons to on another then there are similarities that each share, if the two areas do not overlap than there is nothing in common, an a or dot represents that the object is in that collection, and making sure that the argument is valid by checking that there is no way the premises are true and the conclusion false. These checks basically give evidence to an argument by using diagrams. An example given in the book is that all animals that bark are mammals. All dogs bark. Therefore all dogs are mammals. There is no way that a dog could not be mammal because dogs are within things that bark and are mammals.

Vague generalities

Chapter eight has a section called “Vague Generalities” that I found important. The book states a few sentences that use vague words such as almost, many, most, a lot of, some, few, and very few. All of these words provide the reader with only a portion of what the claim is stating if these words are used. We can only assume certain claims if these words are true. To be more accurate there must be words and phrases that are more certain and precise that will leave us no questions on whether the claim is true or false. For example if I said that a lot people will vote in the class, the person hearing this statement might have a different definition of a lot then I do. Making claims and premises we must be careful not to use vague and ambiguous phrases that make the reader uncertain of our ideas.

Learning from Assignment #1

The first assignment that was done by our class was useful in many ways. For my group we examined an opinion article found in the San Jose Mercury News that discussed the problem of high school athletes and how head injuries were dealt pertaining to the athletes. The article discussed in detail the problems that were with the current system on head injuries and made a point of highlighting the flaws of it. The flaws of the system discussed made the current protocol in dealing with head injuries a weak system that was flawed. The author supported their idea that a change needed to be made within the system by stating facts and statistics. The article was a good display of how to argue against a current rule in place by using facts and statistics to support the argument. The assignment not only showed me how to argue correctly, but the article also displayed a well rounded non bias article that showed both sides of the argument. The article also discussed how hard it is for a coach to determine whether or not an athlete was ready to be back on the field. The assignment displayed the correct way to write an unbiased paper that also provided relevant information on how to argue against a current protocol.

Accepting/Rejecting claim based on personal experience

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTqgp6jKbqE


The online example I chose to use from the internet is the commercial with NFL QB Brady Quinn and the EAS sports drink. Now in this commercial we see Brady Quinn working out and at the end of his workout he drinks an EAS sports drink and says, “Now I’m done.” This commercial conveys to the consumer that after every workout they should drink this drink so they can “complete” their workout. The commercial does not actually say this but the commercial also conveys that when one drinks this sport drink after their workout they will be as big and strong and Brady Quinn.

Personal experience is one of the concepts discussed in chapter 5. Now from my personal experience I can tell you that one will not get as big and strong as Brady Quinn no matter how much you drink this sport drink. This is a good example of how personal experience is a good determining factor to whether we should believe an advertisement or not. Even though there are famous people that claim that this product works we should not get sucked into the advertising scheme of these companies. Trusting our own experiences and common sense is one of the most reliable sources when accepting or rejecting a claim.

Repairing an Argument

Repairing arguments is a way of solidifying a claim. The three requirements to repairing an argument are that the premises added would make the argument stronger, the premise is plausible, and the premise is more plausible than the conclusion.

I haven’t pumped gas in a month. My car will not run.

This claim is a repairable argument. The unstated premise needed to make this argument stronger would be that the car’s fuel indicator is at empty. This piece of information could link how gas is the cause of the car not running. This premise added about the fuel indicator is also plausible, because we can physically see the indicator being at empty. If this statement of the fuel indicator being at empty was not there, we could assume that there is something else wrong with the car such as the battery is dead. We do not need to add that all cars without fuel do not run because that is common sense. The statement that all cars with no gas do not run would not make the argument any stronger than it is.

Mistaking the person or group for the argument

Mistaking the person or group for the argument is a common occurrence in everyone’s life. The short definition of doing this would be to refute the argument just because of the person that is stating the argument. An example given in the book is an English teacher who does not speak English clearly. He discusses how to start writing a proper essay by brainstorming and making an outline. This technique is effective, but the person argues against the claim only because he/she disagrees with the actual person and not the argument itself. We have a negative perception of the person who is stating the claim so when we are hearing that person making a claim we automatically refute it. This concept is how stereotypes begin. This concept can also be expanded to a group of people rather than just one person. We think that group A is wrong, because they were the ones that did something horrible two years ago. When refuting an argument we should not only just judge and examine the person who is making the claim but also the claim itself.

Slippery Slope Argument

A fallacy is something that is defective in an argument. One of the fallacies is called a slippery slope. Slippery slope is basically where an argument claims that the premises will end up in an extreme conclusion.

An example would be that if we continue to watch violence of TV we will become a violent species. We will start act violently against our neighbors and friends. The world will eventually be chaotic and come crashing down because of violence on TV.

The premise and conclusion of the argument is taken to the extreme and does not take in to factor that you may fall somewhere in between the two extremes. In this certain example the last two statements can not be absolutely connected by truth. This argument does not consider that there is a middle ground in this situation. Instead it is thinking rather irrationally and jumping to extreme conclusions.

Communicating in a group

Communication in a group is discussed in chapter 4 in the book by O'Hair, specifically about communication between the employee and the superior. Communication in a work environment is always needed, because things like the status of jobs and performance reviews need to be discussed. Some of the ways that can lead to better communication between the superior and subordinate is a checklist that the book describes in detail. Things like having a scheduled meeting, not having distractions during the meeting, having and open mind into the meeting, and having active listening skills.

In today's workplace there are often times when there needs to be communication in a group by the leader and the team member. A team leader needs to build an energetic group that will output quality results. The team leader will make the team members agree and see the common goal of the group. The book also discusses a checklist in the book. Things such as assigning a meeting time, discussing goals, having training and advice available, active listening skills, and stating the commitment to the group project.

Little things discussed in this book can make for a quality product that the group creates. We all need to know what is expected of us in the leadership as well as what is in the team member role.

Argument Analysis

Number two on page 225 is an argument. It has premises that are plausible that support the claim that is also plausible. The claim and conclusion in this case is that the person will be late and might as well stop and get breakfast. Some additional premises that would help this argument are premises stating that this person is always late when they are five minutes late and there is heavy traffic. The subargument for this statement would be that sentence one, two, three support sentence four. Sentence four supports sentence five, the claim. This would be a good argument if there was a statement claiming that this person is always late for class when sentence one, two and three occurs. Other than that it would be considered a good argument, because if the premises were true the conclusion to this statement would be absolutely true also.

This exercise was useful to me, because it helped me break down an argument. Not only did I identify whether it was a good argument or not, I also was able to analyze the weaknesses to this argument. This was a short argument but gave me a lot of insight on how to solidify an argument.

Testing an Argument

There are three tests that an argument must pass in order for the argument to be deemed good. First, the premises must have a good reason to be true. Second, the premises has more reason to be true than the conclusion. Third, the argument must be either valid or strong.

An example argument would be Michael Scott eats fast food every day. People who eat fast food are overweight. Michael Scott is overweight.

This argument is considered valid, because although the first premise and the conclusion may be true, the second premise may not be true. There is no way to tell that everyone who eats fast food everyday is overweight. Take for example Chad Ochocinco who is a pro football player. He says he eats McDonalds everyday and is not overweight. This is a bad argument, because there is no way of knowing whether the premises are actually true or not.

The three tests that we must run on this argument will either validate or invalidate how strong the argument is. The first question we must answer is whether the premises provided are plausible. From an observation we can tell that Michael Scott eats fast food every day. The second premise cannot be validated in complete truth, because not everyone who eats fast food every day is overweight. As mentioned earlier Chad Ochocinco says he eats fast food every day. He is not overweight, because he works out every day. The second question asks if the premises are more plausible than the conclusion. We can make an observation that Michael Scott comes to the office and eats fast food everyday for lunch. Our conclusion which states that he is overweight is a subjective claim. A person’s description of overweight varies from person to person. And lastly the argument is only considered valid because if the premises were true there is no way the conclusion would be false. This argument given as an example is therefore a bad argument.

Valid and Strong Arguments

At first glance strong and valid arguments appear to be almost identical to each other. As we take a look closer there are key differences in both these types of arguments. A valid argument is one which the premise can not be true when the conclusion is false. An example is that all the books I own are red. So my communications book is red. This argument would be bad if my premise was not true. If I had owned all blue books instead of red, my communications book is blue and the argument would be false.

A strong argument is one that has a possibility of the premise being true and the conclusion false. An example would be that for the upcoming Olympic games, team Canada’s hockey team has some of the best players in the world. The team with the best players will win the gold medal. Team Canada will win the gold medal in hockey. This statement is a strong argument because the premises are true. Even though Team Canada has an all star roster, it doesn’t mean that they will win the gold medal. There are other teams like team Russia that also has an all star roster and there are many factors such as team chemistry when determining in who will win the gold medal.

Leadership

In chapter three of Epstein’s book he discusses the different types of leaders. Leadership is thought of by most people as the person who directs the group by telling everyone what to do. Being a leader is actually more than that. The actual definition of leadership given by Epstein is “the exercise of interpersonal influence toward the attainment of goals.”(32) Epstein describes four types which are the authoritarian, consultative, participative, and the laissez-faire leadership. The first type of leader, the authoritarian, is defined as someone who makes the decision without the groups input and communicates to the group what he or she is going to do. The consultative leader is someone who listens and takes ideas of the group then makes a decision after analyzing all the facts. A participative leader is someone who is actively working with the group to achieve their goals. A laissez-faire leader, which is the lowest rated type, is a leader who does not communicate with the group and allows the group to proceed with the task at hand.

These descriptions of leadership given by Epstein give everyone a better understanding of what and how to be a good leader. We all at some point in our lives will have to lead a group whether in school or work. We all have a better understanding of what makes a good leader.

Vague Statements

A vague statement is a phrase that doesn’t capture all the details. When a vague statement is being said there can be more than one interpretation behind it. Sometimes this is good when a subject is brought up and people are not comfortable with telling the whole truth. A vague statement is good for answering questions such as how much a person makes or how much someone purchased an item for.

Vague statements aren’t good for when a person is giving directions to somebody or trying to describe something. If a police officer questioned a person about a robbery and said the burglar was tall, it would not help out the investigation. Tall can be interpreted in a lot of ways. What’s tall to a person of average height wouldn’t be the same as what’s tall to Lebron James. So if a person told the investigator that the burglar was tall he can’t really get a detailed description of a person. Or worst yet the investigator could arrest someone who he thought was tall even though the person who an eyewitness was thought was short.

There are times when it is acceptable to use vague statements. Most of the time when communicating with one another it is good to use statements that are not vague so that we are able to get our point across clearly.

Small Group COMM book's definition of a good group

The small red book that we all have from the authors O'Hair and Wiemann describe what makes a good group. The book list key points of a good group such as being able to work together well, having group rules, good behavior, synergizing ideas, and being able to resolve conflicts. The authors also go on to discuss how having one clear goal in mind is important. The book emphasizes that when people work together they can achieve anything, which is true.

In order to work together people have to know how to deal with each other in groups when conflicts arise. If two group members are arguing over a topic in which they both believe is right, they should be able to manage the conflict healthily and be able to defend their points of view.

A well rounded group will have roles set up for each member, a single goal, an agenda, and willing participation. Basically everyone has to be willing to be on board with the main purpose and put effort into achieving the group’s goals. They have to put the group before themselves. Being in a good group obviously starts with every person trying to put their best effort in achieving the goal. That means having input in ideas the group develops and also being open minded to other ideas other group member may have.

Following the guidelines that O’Hair and Wiemann have set up for good group communication will push the group in the right direction toward being that ideal group that works together well.

1) Subjective Objective

For my topic on subjective and objective claims I have chosen to write about the San Jose Sharks. The Sharks in my subjective claim is that they are an average team at best. An objective claim would be that the Sharks are the best team in the NHL because they are ranked number one in the standings as of January 31, 2010. A subjective claim is a claim that is based on one’s opinion. There are a lot of different views on the subjective claims because they are opinion based. One person’s point of view is always different from another person’s opinion. An objective claim is based on fact and truth that is supported by evidence.

Even though I believe the Sharks are an average team, there are most likely people who believe they are the best team and are willing to make that claim based on wins and losses throughout the season. The Sharks if rated by wins and losses would be considered the best team. I compare who the best team is using the past team’s performance in the playoffs. These are both subjective claims because different people have different opinions on how to rate a team.

An objective claim relating to this topic would be that the Pittsburgh Penguins are the best team in the NHL. They are the best team because they won the Stanley Cup last year. The whole purpose of the playoff system is to weed out the weak teams and reward the best team. This would be an objective claim, because the person using this claim is basing this on hard cold facts.

My past communication is in COMM40 Debate. I participated in the SJSU Fall 2008 Intramural Debate. I lost all my matches except for one. I communicate everyday on the phone, in person, XBOX Live, and occassionaly to myself. I hope to be able to articulate myself better from taking this course. This is my first online class, and I hope to have a positive experience. Some of my interests include playing/watching hockey and football, watching TV, and KFC. I love them honey BBQ wings. Thanks for reading.

-The Situation