One concept that I found interesting in Chapter 14 of Epsteins text was random sampling because I always found this interesting when I learned about this in my science class.

Random sampling is a sample chosen randomly where that at every choice there is an equal chance that any of the remaining members of the population is picked (Epstein, 284).

For example, when you are trying to determine the average number of individuals who like playing sports and who those who don't in San Jose State University. It wouldn't be reasonable to pick a sample group from those of the athletic department because they may all like to play sports, that would not be a good sample. But, to pick individuals at random would be a more better sample because the group wouldn't be concentrated in one area. The average would be weighted equal and not lean towards one side.

This is my first online class, and I really like how it doesn't consume too much of my times from my busy schedule. I also like that we were able to blog about our thoughts and insights about the topics without having to think of punctuation and/or grammar as much. And we wouldn't be criticized by what we had written. The fact that we needed to comment on three posts made us read our peers blogs which in return possibly helped us understand certain topic even more. This course helped me a lot on finding claims and fallacy in arguments, and that helped me on rebuttal on making a better counter argument. Also, I liked that we were able to stay with our groups throughout the projects. With keeping the same groups it was easier because we had already met each other previously.

The least favorite thing about this class was the last project. It was a little inconvenient to gather many people up because a lot of people have different time schedule.

Coming into this class I didn't know what to expect. I struggled in debates and discussion that were held in and outside of school. But after taking this class I found it easier for me to rebuttal against what other people are arguing about. I have learned to further expand my thoughts about the subjects. There are certain ways to convey your point or lure people into thinking what your stating is plausible or a reasonable explanation. I learned to communicate my thoughts clearly to other people by reading, understanding and placing the concepts in class into real life scenarios. With learning the critical thinking concepts I was able to figure out what certain advertisements and political figures are using to attract more consumers/ followers.

Now, every time I watch a commercial about something I'll connect it to one of the many fallacies that we have learned about. Most advertisements or commercials now-a-days use appeal to emotion. There were more things that I have learned from this class that I have started to use in everyday life. Critical thinking and expanding the thought of certain things has made me become a better writer.

In Chapter 15, Epstein talks about "The Normal Conditions" and goes and relates to the example he gives of spot and dick. Epstein goes on and explain why the normal conditions are important to cause an argument or example to be valid or strong. According to Epstein, Normal Conditions are "for casual claim, the normal conditions are the obvious and plausible unstated claims that are needed to establish that the relationship between purported cause and purported effect is valid or strong" (303). Epstein uses the example about Dick and Spot to show how the concept of normal conditions is use and the example is:

"Dick was sleeping soundly up to the time that Spot barked.
Spot barked at 3 a.m.
Dick doesn't normally wake up at 3 a.m.
Spot was close to where Dick was sleeping.
There was no other loud noise at the time...." (303).

Epstein explains that its important to leave or exclude the obvious and normally we assume that things are the "normally" just like that. For instance in the example above, Dick normally doesn't wake up wake up at 3 a.m. and we need to assume that things are normally like this that Dick never tends to wake up at 3 a.m. but this time he did. This concept was just interesting to me and made sense when Eptein conclude the normal conditions in his example of Dick and Spot.

Since both of these websites are from the same SJSU source I would have to say that both were helpful. However the main Mission Critical homepage offered more information and I liked how the concepts were broken down by categories, some of which we have read in class. Although we had already covered concepts such as: vagueness, ambiguity, premise, conclusion, validity and burden of proof, it was interesting to read the alternate definitions and use of the concepts.

In addition, it appeared there were concepts not covered like: universal statements, but this was another term for the concept of general claims using “all” and “none”. There were some concepts that were unfamiliar such as: universal and non- universal syllogisms and a more familiar, but so far undiscussed concept of hasty generalizations – a fallacy that draws a conclusion (or assumption) about a population based on a sample that is not large enough.

Example: I read where there have been no reported cases of HIV infection in Liberty Lake. The people of Liberty Lake must be free of the HIV virus. These examples as well as the exercises are always helpful, because they can clarify the concepts, give you detailed feedback for incorrect answers and give you a way to see how the concept is correctly used.

Who's fault?

I felt the Cause and Effect to be a confusing website to understand in one gulp due to all the information being splayed throughout the web page. If they had condensed it by narrowing down and outlining the important information of casual arguments, it may have been clearer for me to understand and grasp the information for the first time. However, there were some interesting examples on the website that helped me to understand the concept of casual arguments.

The most confused part to me was the example of the bicyclist and the illegal truck. First, it explains the claims given by the bicyclist and illegal truck to defend their cases "seems to fit the pattern of an inductive argument, because none of them seems based on observation or experience. But, in fact, they do fit that pattern. “And then the website explains to that inductive reasoning is based on observed instances; however this argument didn’t require such observations because of the similar arguments that the lawyers came up with. That part got me confused in seeing when a causal argument can make do without using observational instances to defend a stance.

analogies in the law

In Epsteins book, Chapter 12 discusses analogies in the law, I found that concept of the chapter interesting. Epstein mentions how most analogies that are made are not detailed and understandable to be good arguments, but when it comes to the law it’s completely different.

Analogies in law are presented as detailed, explicit, and clear which are carefully analyzed arguments that point out important similarities to which a general principle is stated. Laws that are unclear or are vague have to have their similarities and difference pointed so that it is easy to reason with it.

These general principles that are enunciated have to be respected by other judges. It doesn’t state that it is law for a judge to follow/respect other judges’ decisions. The books talks about how judges use this general principle to conclude cases that are thrown at them. They take into account all the differences of each case and make a new decision. They need to decide whether or not to respect or overthrow the previous judges decision.

When studying the information in the link provided, I had the most trouble understanding reasoning by criteria. It took me longer to comprehend the concept mainly because of the terminology used.

After researching it in other sources, it became easier to understand. To use this kind of reasoning, criteria by which you can associate a valid argument with a premise must be established. After researching this topic, it was easier to grasp the concept by having more examples to look at. Also, I learned that it using this reasoning in an argument may make an argument seem stronger.

An example I came up with is when a basketball player is struggling with his jump shot. A coach would use reasoning by criteria by telling his player, "You're just not hitting those jumpers today. You should try to take some easier shots and get yourself in a rhythm and build your confidence." Rather than crucially criticizing that player, he used his reasoning to constructively criticize.

1). Reasoning by Analogy - My brother doesn't get good grades, yet my parents bought him a car. I have great grades so I should get a car; maybe even a better one.

2). Sign Reasoning - It's been a month since he sprained his ankle during a game. He hasn't played since so it must still be bothering him.

3). Causal Reasoning - If I don't really have much sleep, I will be very cranky.

4). Reasoning by Criteria - My shoes make my feet hurt. I should probably buy new ones.

5). Reasoning by Example - My friend drank 17 shots within one hour. Consequently, he was having seizure and his body temperature went lower from alcohol poisoning. If I were you, I wouldn't drink that much in that short time span.

6). Inductive - I didn't study at all for the last exam and got a bad grade. This time, I'll put time in to study so I can get a better grade.

7). Deductive - If he studies, he will pass the test. He studied thoroughly, so he will the test.

don't get her anything!

An appeal to spite is a way for an individual to get "even" with another person to justify their reasoning for doing such actions. These actions are from bitterness and hatred towards the other person.

For example:

Megan: Jamie's birthday party is coming soon. Have you gotten anything for her?

Misao: I just ordered her gift on Ebay. I got her a Polaroid camera and films that she always wanted.

Tammy whispers to Misao: Dude, remember at your 20th birthday party, Jamie didn't even get you anything.. Why are you even bothering to get her one?


Tammy argues that Misao shouldn't buy a gift for Jamie's birthday because Jamie did not give a present to Misao when it was her birthday.

A stronger premise to this argument would be, "You should not give others gifts if they did not give one to you." Even so, I don't find this to a rational reason to justify not giving a gift. It's a bit selfish to me in my opinion. Just because Jamie didn't give Misao a gift on her birthday, it does not make it legitimately right for Misao to turn back and do the same thing to Jamie, instead it would be due to intentions of spite.

Nice Teeth, eh :D

This is an anti advertising for meth. It is obviously seen as an appeal of fear from the woman with uneven, stained teeth and scratches and scabs on her lips and face. Who would want that?

The appeal to fear is that if a person does not want to end up looking like the woman above, they should most definitely not start using meth. The sarcasm of the advertisement: "You'll never worry about lipstick on your teeth again," is very intriguing. It made me think, "That is not the kind of lipstick I would like on my mouth." To me based off this advertisement, meth is not worth it and has negative effects orally.

To sum up this advertisement as an argument, the premise would be that if a person uses meth, then their mouth would look like the picture. This is considered as a valid argument. Use meth and you will get problems in your mouth. The premise and conclusion cannot be true and false at the same time.

appeal to emotion

An appeal in emotion in an argument is a premise that suggests that one must believe or do something because he or she feels that way. There are many different types of an appeal to emotion, such as an appeal to fear, an appeal to vanity, an appeal to spite, and an appeal to pity.

Whenever I see an bro-sure or an advertisement of an organization, which mainly focuses about people with some sort of cancer, kids with cancer, Japan crisis, or some animal abuse. I normally see pictures of sickly people, needy children, the destroyed area of Japan, or abused animals on the ad. Those pictures are used to make people feel sympathy towards them and cause them to feel like they must do something to help.

This was an example of appeal to pity which is the one that strikes me the most. It's the appeal that hits me most mainly because I'm the type of person that can sometimes care too much about someone or something. I realize that there are those who are less fortunate then most, so I help as much as I can. Seeing sickly people or hurt animals that are in need bring out this side of me that forces me to do something.

Generalities
There are two kinds of generalities: precise and vague.

Precise Generalities
They involve a more black and white approach in the argument.

An example of this "Less than 5% of the students in a chemistry class actually understand the material. Mary is in that chemistry class. So she does not understand the material. On the other hand, vague generalities use generic terms, such as most, many, and almost all.

Vague Generalities
Words that are too vague tend to make it difficult to figure out if the argument is valid. Words such as a few or a lot are too vague. But almost all and very few are two vague generalities that we can use in strong arguments.

For example, “Almost all students study” versus “A lot of students study.” The one with almost all sounds more concrete since it’s stating that not all students study. But as for the claim using a lot, it’s vague leaving you wondering how many students study? How many is a lot?

chochoo

Like the first assignment, this last essay has further improved my critical thinking and communication skills, as well as how to work better in a team environment. It was easier to talk to and communicate with my group mates the second time around, especially since we worked well before.

The first and second assignments kind of made us delve deeper within an article or within an organization to actually see whether or not the arguments that they were stating were actually valid.

For example that they actually were structured in a way a good and valid argument is supposed to be structured. The first was a useful exercise because it made us look deeper in what articles are actually posting. I remember looking through for the main claim and supporting claim and decided whether the argument within the article was actually valid and strong. I actually found it to structurally be weak, and it can show after you read the article

The second group assignment was interesting because it involves research on an organization. The organization that our group picked was PETA; which was quite amusing. I didn't know much about this organization beside that they were against killing and eating animals. But after looking into their website, I found much more information about them. Looking at my group member's part, they used materials that was cover from Epstein, which also helped me have a better understanding about the organization. For example, such as reasoning, fallacies, emotion of appeal, and also endorsements are used within PETA articles, slogans, and other.

When working as a group it was also enjoyable because our group was able to cooperate very well. The group meeting was also helpful. Our group was able to get down to the subject and broke down the assignment evenly to each member. This assignment was useful because it help me learn about the PETA organization more thoroughly and improved my communication with my group members.

jamie likes to fetch

General Claims and Their Contradictions
Epstein states that “we need to know how to reason using general claims that assert something in a general way about all or a part of a collection. Claims may seem valid but they aren’t.

For example, “All dogs like to play fetch. Jamie likes to play fetch. So Jamie is a dog.”

It seems valid but it’s not. The premises could be true but Jamie could either be a hamster, cat, hedgehog, bird or etc. that likes to play fetch. Dogs aren’t the only animals that like to play fetch. Arguments that sound correct are actually bad.

In order to avoid getting lured into belief we first must understand what “all” and “some” mean. All means “Every single one, no exceptions” or sometimes depending on the argument All could also mean “Every single one, and there is at least one.” Some means “At least one,” or “At least one, but not all,” depending on the argument. This is where contradictions play into the general claims. We use contradictions to counter arguments that we experience on the daily. Contradictions further the discussion.

For example, let’s go back to the state used above about “All dogs like to play fetch,” someone could use it’s contradiction against it, “Not all dogs like to play fetch.”

Tammy likes to fetcg

General Claims and Their Contradictions
Epstein states that “we need to know how to reason using general claims that assert something in a general way about all or a part of a collection. Claims may seem valid but they aren’t.

For example, “All dogs like to play fetch. Tammy likes to play fetch. So Tammy is a dog.”

It seems valid but it’s not. The premises could be true but Tammy could either be a hamster, cat, hedgehog, bird or etc. that likes to play fetch. Dogs aren't the only animals that like to play fetch. Arguments that sound correct are actually bad.

In order to avoid getting lured into belief we first must understand what “all” and “some” mean. All means “Every single one, no exceptions” or sometimes depending on the argument All could also mean “Every single one, and there is at least one.” Some means “At least one,” or “At least one, but not all,” depending on the argument. This is where contradictions play into the general claims. We use contradictions to counter arguments that we experience on the daily. Contradictions further the discussion.

For example, let’s go back to the state used above about “All dogs like to play fetch,” someone could use it’s contradiction against it, “Not all dogs like to play fetch.”

Vague Generalities
Words that are too vague tend to make it difficult to figure out if the argument is valid. Words such as a few or a lot are too vague. But almost all and very few are two vague generalities that we can use in strong arguments.

For example, “Almost all students study” versus “A lot of students study.” The one with almost all sounds more concrete since it’s stating that not all students study. But as for the claim using a lot, it’s vague leaving you wondering how many students study? How many is a lot?

no use studying

Counter Arguments
There are several ways that one can use when refuting an argument directly, these include “Show that at least one of the premises is dubious. Show that the argument isn’t strong or valid. Show that the conclusion is false”.

The other day my friend was freaking out because he had a mid-term the next day and he hadn’t studied. He said, “It’s useless for me to study. I can’t find any of the answers to the short answer questions”. When he said this, my first response was “It’s not useless for you to study – even if you study with the material that you have, you’ll still be able to get some studying done and you’ll still know some things on the mid-term.”

In this case, I was attacking my brother’s conclusion and showing that it was false – thus, directly refuting his argument.

Raising Objections
Raising objections against an argument is a common way to show that an argument is bad (Epstein, 147). When we have an objection we are showing that one of the premises is questionable or there is a premise that is missing to support the argument more, thus showing why or how the argument is weak.

For example, someone could say, “We should get a new couch because I don’t like the one we have.” Objections against that could be, “We already have a functional couch no need for a new one,” or “What’s wrong with the one we’ve got” or “We don’t have money for a new couch right now” or “We would have to work extra hours to pay off the couch.”

These objections are showing that the argument about getting a new couch just because the person doesn’t prefer it isn’t strong enough. It raises many questions as to why a new couch is needed.

girlfriend = -$$$$

The Contradictory of a Claim

Epstein states that compound claims are claims that are made from other claims, but it is viewed as just one claim. Since that is said, it gets confusing to try and see how the claim is false.

A contradictory of a claim is one that is opposite of the true original claim. Contradictory can be sometimes called the negation of a claim.

For example, the claim could be that “Tommy will go to the group meeting or he will hang out with his friends.” While the contradictory can be, “Tommy won’t go to the group meeting or he won’t hang out with his friends.”

Reasoning for Hypothesis

Epstein explains that reasoning for hypothesis is equivalent to these:
1.) Start with an assumption (hypothesis) A and then support that with a good argument for B;
2.) “Make a good argument for If A, then B.”

For example,
Joey: I think of going to ask Annie as my girlfriend.

Dennis: If you’re going to have a girlfriend, then I would suggest you to save up a large amount of money.

Joey: Why?

Dennis: It’s nice to be in a relationship and to have money, especially when you’re a guy. Whether you are spoiling your girlfriend with gifts, or just being able to help them out when they need it, it’s something one can appreciate. Well, you will be going to take out your girlfriend a lot by spending a lot of money, such as watching at movie theaters, eating at restaurants, going to a theme park, and so much more. Even when your girlfriend offers to pay, it doesn’t feel right for her to pay. Plus, if you guys celebrate anniversaries, then you most likely get her gifts that cost money every month. Don’t forget her birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, Valentine Days gifts or even a surprise gift. All those add up. Oh, and gas money too for your dates.

Joey: Wow, I just realized that I need a job.

Dennis hasn’t shown as to why Joey would have to save up a lot of money if he were to get a girlfriend. Rather, Dennis has shown that the assumption (hypothesis) that when Joey get a girlfriend, he will need to save up a lot of money.

That is, Dennis has proved: If Joey wants a girlfriend, then he’ll have to save money.

only if you pay

Compound claims are single claims made up of multiple claims. A compound claim, regardless of how many claims it consists of, is viewed as a single claim.

For instance, consider a child breaking a vase by playing ball in the house. Both of his parents are angry at him, but are undecided on who would punish him. So, either the father will punish him, or the mother will. As you can see, regardless of which premise happens (punishment from father or punishment from mother), the child will be punished for his behavior.

As stated by Epstein, "a claim is conditional if it can be rewritten as an 'if...then..." claim that must have the same truth value. In other words, something will only happen if a previous action occurs before.

For example, Monica will only go on a date with Kevin if he pays for everything. This is considered conditional because if Kevin were not to pay for everything, then Lisa would not go on a date with him.

mmmm

Despite being an advertisement for fast food, it gives the subliminal message and image of sexual practices. Businesses and companies, such as Burger King in this case, have incorporated the "sex sells" cliche in their advertisements to catch the attention of people. The fact that the sandwich is called the "Super Seven Incher" would make some people that think of a certain male reproductive organ because of the attention to the size. More overpowering, the picture of the woman that is about to put a supposedly long sandwich in her mouth gives the indirect image of oral sex. The caption stating, "It'll blow your mind away", hints at oral sex as well. Advertisements like this often overhype the actual product and are only used to catch the attention of possible consumers. Although the sandwich may be appealing, the ad itself does not appeal to me because of the sexual subliminal message.

~pray to the porcelein god~

“Kelly is going to a college party. So she will drink lots of alcohol.”

The premise is “Kelly is going to a college party”. The conclusion is “So, she will drink a lot of alcohol.”

The argument is valid, but it is not a good argument because it jumps into conclusion, which is called slippery slope fallacy. When event X has happened (or will or might happened), therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

I can alleviate this argument by adding a premise, “Since many people might be drinking, Kelly might be more tempted to drink more alcohol”.

Another premise I can add is “Kelly doesn’t have any plans the night after; and she have a reputation to “pray the porcelain god” during her college ritual.”

Furthermore, I can change the conclusion to "So, she will most likely drink a lot of alcohol".

By having this extra premises and modifying the conclusion, it gives more reason to believe the argument, which makes it valid. In addition, having more valid reasons make it harder to argue. This can make a good argument.

Mentorrrrrrrr~

In Chapter 4 of "The Essential Guide to Group Communication", the authors talk about the importance of mentors in groups. Mentors are usually older and more experienced than other members, and can offer knowledge and wisdom that no one else in the group or team can offer. Proteges benefit from that knowledge and are able to grow, develop, and/or learn at a faster pace. The relationship between those two types of group members relies on each member understanding his or her role in the group. The mentor must be willing to teach, while the protege must be willing to learn. Both sides must make the effort for each other in order to accomplish their goal.

I found this information useful because all of us are mentors and proteges depending on the situation. When it comes to trying to learn something, I have to be more open-minded. Meanwhile, I have to be more patient whenever I teach something to someone. Also, the four stages in a mentoring relationship (initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition) showed me that being a mentor is not an overnight thing.

I am a pink hair pierced ears rebellious punk

Slippery slope is a type of fallacy that falsely assumes that one thing must lead to another.

They begin by telling that if we do one thing then that will lead to another and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we consequently shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with this kind of fallacy is that it is possible to do the first thing that they declare without doing the other thing.

For example, my parents have a tendency to use slippery slope in their argument.

“If you piece your ears, then next you’ll get a tattoo, and before you know it you’ll be a rebellious punk with pink hair and everything."

I don’t want to become a rebellious punk with pink hair.

Therefore: This argument commits the slippery slope fallacy because it is perfectly possible to pierce my ears without becoming a punk; I could pierce my ears and not get a tattoo.

The conclusion therefore hasn’t been proven, because the argument’s first premise is false.

If you have a lot of cars you don't drive, then you are a bad neighbor. Whatttt?

I. “My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.
1. People do not like living next door to such a mess.
2. He never drives any of them.
3. They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place.
4. It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.”

Argument! Yes!
Conclusion: My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all cars in his yard.
Additional premises needed: If the neighbor is messy, doesn’t drive their old leaky car, then they should be forced to get rid of all their cars since it is bad for the neighborhood and will decrease property values.
Identify any subargument: Premises 2 and 4 support 5, while 3 is independent.
If people do not like living next to that mess, and if they look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place, then it is bad for the neighborhood and will decrease property values.
All of the premises support the conclusion, 1.
Good argument! No… it is a bad argument.

Although there are independent premises, I don’t think they lead to the conclusion. How does the writer know other people view it “such a mess”? Why does it matter if the neighbor “never drives” his cars? Why does it matter if they look old and leak oil? Many people own cars that are old and leaky. That doesn’t mean it is bad for the neighbor and decrease property values. The conclusion of removing their cars in their yard because of those dubious premises is a bad argument. Plus, it is the neighbor’s yard, their property and matter.

I find the exercise to be useful because I was able to break down and analyze the argument.

Types of leadership

There are four types of leadership: authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez faire.

Authoritarian leadership focuses on group goals and takes complete charge of decision making, demanding strict fulfillment from subordinates.

An example would be Bill Gates and Steve Jobs controlling their company to a success.

Consultative leadership focuses on using the skills, experiences, and ideas of others. However, the leader or manager using this style still holds the final decision power. They will not make major decisions without approval from others.

An example would be for the Critical Thinking group project. One person would approach their team members on what article to use. The team members brain storm over the issue, some suggest drug related article and others suggest political articles. The participative leader takes all these suggestions, weights their pros and cons, and then takes the final decision after considering their team members’ opinions.

Participative or democratic leadership focuses on their group members to participate. It is more expressive and group members feel more motivate and creative in this type of leadership.

An example would be asking all group members for ideas and inputs. Then, all group members vote what would be the best idea in a project. After that, asking group members to work with their strengths and have them divide the work. This lets members to work at their own pace and set their own deadlines. This is the type of leadership my Critical Thinking group is using.

Laissez-faire leadership focuses on the group to function more or less on its own. It is when there are no feedbacks from the leader. All of the group members have the power of authority.

An example is when the manager have other higher priority and went on a business trip. All the employee have the power to maintain the store. 

1 lb of cajun mild crawfish with potatoes and sausages please :D

A valid argument is when you can back up with supporting evidence. It is when the argument is provable, legitimate, and correct.

For example,

“Boiling Crab is the best seafood restaurant in San Jose because it always has a long line!”

It isn’t a strong argument due to the reason the evidence that supports it doesn’t have to point to the argument being made.

Just because a restaurant has a very long wait doesn’t make it better than any other. It could be that the restaurant’s capacity is smaller than the amount of customers, lack of efficient seating customers, or customers take so long eating the food.

A strong argument would be “Boiling Crab is the best seafood restaurant in San Jose because customers often wait for many hours to eat despite its long line compared to many other seafood restaurants. Plus, many customers became loyal after eating there.

A strong argument is persuasive, but may not essentially be truthful or based on accurate facts. It is also make it hard for people to refute.

Swine Flu?

“Today I woke up with a headache, sore throat, and a runny nose. I must have a cold.”

The premises are plausible because I have a good reason to believe it is true. I woke up in the morning with my head swirling, painful throat, and nose dripping.  I can’t think of any reason on why it is not plausible.

My premises are more plausible than the conclusion because people can physically tell that I have those symptoms when my head is hot, raspy voice, and my snots falling out of my nostril.

There is a connection between the premises and conclusion. My symptoms of having a headache, sore throat, and a runny nose establish my conclusion.

This argument is valid since there is no way the premise could be true and the conclusion wrong at the same time.  However, there is some way that the premise to be right and the conclusion to be wrong. I could’ve a hangover from alcohol to have that symptom or a swine flu. Though, I am sure that I did not drink alcohol the day before I woke up, and  I had a swine flu vaccine. That possibility is unlikely. 

BOYFRIEND, HOLD ME!!

Besides objective and subjective claims, there are another two different types of claims: descriptive and prescriptive claims. Descriptive claims means “says what is” whereas a prescriptive claim means “says what should be. Essentially, what that means is that a prescriptive claim is where someone commands what needs to be done.

Few weeks ago, I was with my friends who just became a couple. We were at a park late at a chilly night. My female friend was shivering of the cold.

Female friend: -shivers- It’s so cold!!
Her boyfriend: Oh, you should’ve brought a thicker jacket.
Female friend: I didn’t know it was going to be this cold!
Her boyfriend: -continues talking with the group-

A descriptive claim would be my female friend stating that she is cold.

Due to the word, should, it indicates that the statement above is a command from someone else, prescriptive claim.

A value judgment, conversely, is similar to a prescriptive claim. However, the only difference is that it includes word, such as good, better, best, or bad, worse, worst. A value judgment is someone’s opinion of whether something is right or wrong. A prescriptive claim is often backed by a value judgment saying what should or shouldn’t be done.

I thought it was kind of wrong for my friend’s boyfriend not to do anything when his girlfriend is cold. Instead of telling her what she should’ve done and letting her shiver, I think he could’ve given her his jacket or hug her to keep her warm. That would be my value judgment.

Which one??

A vague sentence or ambiguous sentence is unclear. It has more than one possible interpretation.

At my bakery where I work, my co-workers and I tend to check out cute girls. Actually, that would consider as a vague sentence. I meant examining attractive females, not checking out as commiting suicide or scanning them (technically).

Few days ago, my co-worker asked me “Did you see the hot girl with the phone?”

This question has two clear interpretations. This ambiguity occurs from the phrase “with the phone”. This phrase may change the subject, you, or the object, the girl.

The possible interpretations could be:

“Did you see the hot girl who is holding the phone?”

“Did you see the hot girl by using the phone?”

“Did you see the hot girl who is using the phone?”

Even though I understood what my co-worker was saying, I couldn't identify which girl. There were many girls who were holding the phone at my workplace. I couldn’t tell which girl my co-worker was talking about.

Moo! 3:o

Objective claims are the contradictory of subjective claims. Objective claims are factual, observable, and does not have personal feelings in them. People have the same view in objective matter. In the other hand, subjective claims are opinions, feelings, and beliefs. Not everyone have the same subjective view.

Few weeks ago, I read in the newspaper that 200 dead cows were found in Wisconsin. That would consider as an objective claim because it can be observe by people that 200 cows are dead. I also recently read many articles about thousands of dead birds fell from the sky or a huge amount of fish were killed.

When I told my friend about the 200 dead cows were found dead and other mass animals deaths, he quickly burst out, “OH MY F****** GOD! WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE WORLD? WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!” I was baffled by his 2012 nonsense and overreaction. I just want to slap my forehead. This would all consider as an subjective claim. My friend and I have different views and reactions of the current event. He thought that the world is ending. I thought that it is foolish to think that.

However, I just heard on the news today that the cows all died from pneumonia. Since the cows are so close together when they eat and sleep, diseases can be transferred quite easily. Plus, there was a massive pneumonia outbreak. Poor cows.

Hi!

Hey ya'll. Call me Tyrone. I am a short Asian girl that likes to collect cute stuff. My major is Business Admin concentrated in Human Resources. 

As for my "communication experience", I took an public speaking class last spring. It gives me benefits of being more self confident and have a better communication toward people. Additionally, I took an acting class last spring. It also gives me confident to a certain extent, but it also puts me in lots of situations where I have to be around people who won't let me be my introverted self. 

I hope to gain a lot from this class, such as learning to spot fallacies in arguments and able to counter argument.

I have no experience about online classes, but it seems very interesting to have my first one. Hopefully, I can handle it. :)

I like to walk my dog, watch anime, read manga, do zumba/yoga, and feeling happy!