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.