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.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Saturday, April 16, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, April 15, 2011
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.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
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?
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?
Friday, March 25, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
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.”
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
