Validity Diagram

The concept I thought was the most interesting and helpful would be the points that the book gives about how to check for validity in a diagram. A valid argument would be that the premises is true and there is no way for the conclusion to be false at the same time.

-       A collection is represented by an enclosed area

-       If one area is entirely within another, then everything in the one collection is also in the other

-       If one overlaps another, then there is something that is common to both collection

-       If two areas do no overlap, then there is nothing common to both collections.

-       An “a” or a dot in an area marks that a particular object is in that collection

These were the pointers that the book gave to help us check for validity.  This diagram helps by making you analyze the argument.  We can use these diagrams to decide whether or not a premise is true. This comes in handy when writing any type of argument. 

General Claims

            In chapter 8 of the Epstein text the thing I thought was useful would have to be general claims. General claims “assert something in a general way about all or a part of a collection” as stated in the text. When stating a general claim the use of all, some, and ect. are to general, therefore they are general claims. The claim may seem valid, but it is not. An example would be:

“All teachers are extremely strict and should be easier”

this is a general claim because it uses the term “all” suggesting that every single one, no exceptions. But in fact this claim is more suggestive because it is based on someone’s perspective, and not a true fact. Not everyone thinks that all teachers are strict. Some teachers can be pretty easy depending on their teaching techniques.  Therefore saying that all teachers are extremely strict and should be easier can only relate to those who feel that way because not everyone feels that way.

The Second Assignment

I enjoyed doing the assignment more then the first because it gave my group the chance to analyze a certain organization. My group and I decided to analyze the American Red Cross Association. This organization was extremely interesting. I learned a lot new things about the Red Cross. For example how they are always the first to be on scene. This assignment helped me understand the concepts clearly.  It shows how the Red Cross use emotional appeal, fallacies, advertisement, and more in this company. It was extremely helpful because we were able to break it down by artifact and focus on one at a time. It helps us dig into the concept a lot better.  Everyone in my group was able to participate and this made the assignment far more enjoyable. I felt that this assignment was far more successful then the first because it gave everyone a chance to contribute to each artifact.  Overall I learned about organizations and the uses certain techniques within the organization. 

Reasoning with "or" claims

The concept that I thought was the most interesting would have to be reasoning with “or” claims in chapter 6 of the Epstein text.  This is used after we decide if the argument is valid or weak by having a looking at the compound claim, if it has one.  A valid argument is when the premises cannot be true or the conclusion to be false at the same time, while a weak argument is when the premises can be true and the conclusion can be false at the same time. The book states that the valid argument form: A or B, not B, therefore A. This is excluding possibilities. The letters are used as claim A or Claim B.  Sometimes we can reduce the possibility. There is many possibilities with the way A or B are placed. It could A or B or C, not A, not B, therefore C.

Chapter 7

Refuting an argument as stated in the Epstein text is there are several ways of refuting an argument:

1. Show that at least one of the premises is dubious

2. Show that the argument isn’t valid or strong

3. Show that the conclusion is false

When refuting indirectly with an argument it is sometimes hard to point out if the premises is false of dubious, but you know there is something wrong with the premises.

            Reducing to the absurd:

“To reduce to absurd is to show that at least one of several claims is false or dubious, or collectively they are unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them,” as stated in the text. . When reducing the absurd you need to find a false conclusion. So if a argument has a absurd conclusion, then the premises is not want you want, but it still must remain as a strong or valid argument. 

chapter 6

In chapter 6 of the Epstein text taught me different types of claims. A compound claim is two claims linked together, while a contradictory of a claim is the opposite truth of another claim, which can be also called as the negation of the claim.  Both these arguments are the opposite of one another. An example of a contradictory claim would be:

Claim                                               Contradictory

This is a whale                             This isn’t a whale

Another thing I learned was the false dilemma. A false dilemma is a when the argument one makes is valid but it is not good. It excludes the possibility of where the claim is false or implausible.  This is a type of fallacy that only two alternatives are considered. An example of this would have to be:

 “If you are not with us, you are against us”

To avoid a false dilemma we have to imagine other possible alternatives.

Advertisement

http://www.justdezign.com/2001portimages/Ad_Perfume.jpg

For the advertisement i decided to use a perfume ad. This is advertisement for the Perfume Manora. It states that
 " a heady fragrance that stuns the sense.
Experience its transforming powers..."

In the text it states that there are three choices we can make in believing a claim or not.
1.accept the claim is true
2.reject the claim is false
3.suspend judgement

I would not accept this claim to be true because I actually collect perfume bottles and i have never been stunned or transformed for any of the perfumes i own. Perfumes do not have the powers to do any of this. I can reject the claim because i have had experience with this being false. I have never had any perfume with these kinds of mystical powers. I can however suspend judgement by evaluating the argument. This argument is not strong or valid it is rather weak and invalid. These argument can be false.

Repairing Arguments

An example argument would be "All cows go moo, so Laura moos."

This argument needs to be repaired in order for it to be a strong or valid argument. Stating that Laura moos and not stating that she is a cow could be wrong because what if she was not a cow, but a dog or human. Saying that Laura the cow moos would make this argument strong or valid. So this argument needs to be repaired. The premises are true, but without stating that Laura is a cow could make this argument weak or invalid. The repaired statement would then be: “All cows go moo, so Laura the cow goes moo too.” This argument would make more sense with saying Laura is a cow. It would be a strong and valid argument with the statement that Laura is a cow. Without saying Laura is a cow  she could be a person and then this argument would be completely false.