Friday, April 29, 2011

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.

1 comments:

Flippit said...

I agree the mission critical website was more helpful than the cause effect website. I never really got the difference between vagueness and ambiguity but in the vagueness and ambiguity article it defined both concepts much better than in Epstein's text book. The example I read of unintentional ambiguity was "Have you seen the ad on TV about trying "to quit smoking cold turkey?" I have heard this said so many times before. If you take this sentence literally then it doesn't make sense because nobody smokes cold turkeys.

Post a Comment