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.