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.