Fallacy

The fallacy I choose is the Mistaking the person (group) for the argument / (Almost) any argument that _____ says about _____ is bad.  So the fallacy means that if a person you name  has an argument and presents their argument, then they present their argument you then claim that person is usually bad.   An example of this:  Any argument that John says about PETA is bad.  Meaning that anytime ‘John” has an argument for PETA then it is a bad argument, he doesn’t have enough claims to back up his argument, and so it won’t mean that his argument will be good.  You could identify the “strawman” in this situation; you can easily claim that someone else’s argument is not good, and can put words in the other person mouth which then misrepresent’s their argument, you do not have enough claims to back up your reasoning for why “John’s” argument is bad.

Complex Arguments Exercise 3

Page 225, Question 3: Las Vegas has too many people (1) There’s not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people (2) And the infrastructure of the city can’t handle more than a million: The streets are overcrowded, and traffic is always congested; the schools are overcrowded, and new ones can’t be built fast enough (3) We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county (4)

-          Argument? Yes

-          Conclusion: We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.

-          Additional Premises needed? No

-          Identify any subarguement:(3) has a good subargument, it backs up the argument that Las Vegas has too many people.   It lists how the infrastructure of the city can’t handle the population of people, and it goes on to give the reasons why it can’t handle it. 

-          Good Argument: Yes, the argument is good because it is supported by claims that explain why Las Vegas has too many people.

Interesting Concept: Communication Technology

In chapter four of our “Group Communication” textbook, I found the section “Master Communication Technology” to be useful.  The section discusses how technology has evolved over the years and how it keeps advancing in this day of age.  It is important that we know at least some basics of technology, because our social world is evolving into the technological era and those who have no knowledge of it will quickly fall behind.  The section starts off with pagers and describes how they receive and store information.  It goes on to telephones and how they have gone wireless with hidden keyboards.  Teleconferencing is now being used when people cannot meet up with one another; they schedule conferences over the phone and it helps reduce travel costs.  E-mail is another important communication technology presently.  E-mail is popular because you can communicate with one another and keep the e-mails as records.  Also you can send one message to multiple recipients at once.  Last is the internet which is one of the biggest communication technology models.  Many people use the internet on a daily basis and gives many people access to new information.  I thought it was useful to know all these communication technology models because many of them listed we use on a daily basis.  

Strong vs. Valid

For chapter 3 in our Critical Thinking textbook there is a discussion on strong and valid arguments.  The book states that a strong argument is “with true premises is sometimes better than a valid one with the same conclusion.”  A person can make an argument thinking it is strong, but just by them thinking it is a strong argument does not make it a strong argument.  A strong argument needs to have a good reason it’s true, must be strong, and it must be “more plausible than its conclusion.  Your word choice in your argument is also important.  You need to use words that will give in to your argument.  Using words like maybe or possibly can weaken your valid argument.  You need to prove that your argument is valid and strong, have support to back you up, and you need to realize if that’s the best argument for your conclusion.

The 4 Leadership Roles

A concept this week that I thought would be useful is in our Group Communication textbook.  In chapter 3 it discusses leadership and decision making as a group.   It first explains what leadership is and the different types of leaderships there are in groups.  So, what I have found interesting and what would be useful is to know the different types of leadership roles in groups.  It lists four different types of roles.  The first is authoritarian which is when the leader makes the decisions without anyone’s input.  The second is consultative, which is when the leader bases their decisions off the ideas of fellow group members.  Thirdly is the participative leader who takes over and summarizes decision to make sure everyone is clear and understands.  Lastly there is laissez-faire leadership role which is when there is “little or no direct leadership” in the groups.  The leader takes no part in the group and just stays of the group’s way.  I think all these information is useful, because when we are in groups we can identify the leadership role and figure out how to improve our groups communication with each other.

Being Vague

Epstein writes, “A sentence is vague if there are so many ways to understand that we can’t settle on one of those without the speaker making it clearer.”  I noticed that a lot of vague sentences take place in advertisements for products.   They try to make the advertisement as a claim but in reality it’s vague because that particular sentence has multiple meanings to it, and people won’t have the clear meaning of that particular sentence.  An advertisement I had seen in the People magazine was for Campbell’s soup.   The sentence in the advertisement says, “Live a more colorful life.”  This sentence comes off vague to me, because it can have different meanings to that sentence.  Someone’s perception of eating Campbell’s could come off as “Oh well if I eat Campbell’s soup, then my life would have more color in it.” But what does it mean when you live a more colorful life?  That your life is bland and if you eat Campbell’s, your life will become more colorful than before?  Or that the vibrant colors of the vegetables will make your food more appetizing and healthier?  I believe that this advertisement comes off too vague for its product because of the multiple meanings it can suggest to a consumer. 

Subjective and Objective Claims

Subjective and objective claims were discussed in chapter 2 of our Critical Thinking textbook.  The author, Richard Epstein, describes a subjective claim is a claim that “invokes personal standards” (Epstein 20).   He also goes on to describe that an objective claim “invokes impersonal standards” (Epstein 20).  A subjective claim I have heard recently was made by my older sister Maria.  We were at work and I walked into the office and she looks up from her desk and tells me, “It’s hot in here.”  The claim is subjective because to her it is hot inside the office; she personally thought it was hot.  I looked at her and shook my head and told her that it was not even close to being hot in the office compared to outside.  An objective claim that I have come across recently was a conversation between me and my friends.  We were discussing some movies that we’ve seen and which ones were our favorites.  I mention that my favorite movie was Goodfellas, and I went on to mention which famous actor was in the movie.  So the objective claim was, “Robert Di Nero is one of the main characters in Goodfellas.”  It’s an objective claim because it does not matter what the other thinks, feels, or believes in.  It won’t matter if they don’t think he was in the movie or feels like he wasn’t a good actor, I stated that he was one of the main characters in the movie.

Interesting Concept

This week’s readings provided a great amount of information about arguments and group communication.  One concept that I have found was in The Essential Guide to Group Communication book.  In chapter two I found that the topic “Avoid Critical Thinking Traps” was extremely useful.  It describes how people can for “common traps that plague group communication.”  Author’s, Dan O’Hair and Mary O. Wiemann, breakdown the four common traps that people usually fall for.  The first trap written is ‘accepting communication at face value,’ which means that people are more likely to accept what is being told to them first.  The second is oversimplifying issues, when there is a problem people tend to figure out a way to make the issue easier rather than actually solving the problem.  Third is ‘making overgeneralizations’, this is when problems are taken out of context and are over the top.  Lastly, is ‘making false assumptions’, this is where people make assumptions that are not valid to the issue.  All four of these traps have helped given me an understanding of how individuals make decisions without actually thinking about it.  It’s helpful to know what to avoid when thinking and it helps me be able to become more skillful when critically thinking. 

- Cali Gurl