ELEVEN.

Week 6, Q. 1

Example Argument:

No boys have periods. So Christopher does not buy tampons.

Analysis: Repairing this argument is easy. The premise that is necessary to make the above argument valid or strong is to say that "Christopher is not a girl." Since this is true, and it makes it a stronger argument, we add it. Like I read in the book, it says not to try and add a new different statement that is also true, because it just seems too obvious to the reader, and really does not add anything new or better to the argument. For example, saying "Christopher is a boy." It would be quite redundant if I were to say Christopher is not a girl AND Christopher is a boy. Obviously if you are not one, or identify with one gender, you are not the other, or identify with the other. As the book says, that would violate the requirement so we leave it out. "We repair only as needed."

TEN.

Week 3, Q. 3

Appeal to Emotion.

This is the original appeal that I wanted to write about because I notice that it is the appeal that captures me the most. I am a self proclimed emotional person. it definitely does not take a lot to make me cry when people talk about personal things, or to latch on to others feelings, like in movies. When I watch television, sometimes I notice myself smiling at the tv, laughing out loud, or even crying as though my heart too, is broken. This is because what is on tv is appealing to my emotions.
The number one thing I can think of are the save a pet commercials with the hurt distressed cats and dogs in the background with the horribly sad song. The woman is asking us to "Everyday innocent animals are beaten, neglected and abused. Will you save one today?" Its an appeal to emotion because it makes usbelieve we must pay this monthly fee to help or adopt 18 pets because we feel upset for the abused animals and drawn into them.

NINE.

Week 3, Q. 2

I'm going to discuss "begging the question" under violating the principle of rational discussion.

Haha I think this fallacy is kind of funny because it's extremely common, and I think I notice it in young kids a lot. It is basically just circular reasoning, where the beginning concludes to the end and the end concludes to the beginning. Many of the examples you see have to do with God, such as "God created the world because it says so in the Bible." Too often in the media and in everyday talking, people use the term "beg to question" to mean "raise the question." That is incorrect.
Beg the question is when your arguments virtually have the same meaning and the proof provided is basically restating of the premise.Therefore, the sentence has begged the question.
I think an example of my own life where I've done this is in highschool. I thought that my teacher hated me or had some crazy idea in her mind about disliking me and that she was the reason for my bad grades. I told her, in more or less words, "you're grading me unfairly. I know this because no matter how good my papers are, you never give me higher than a C." This argument is pretty circular because I'm basing my argument on the fact that he grades unfairly and that my work is in the "good" category. This can be justified on her end, (which it was) by showing the rubric by which she graded and put me in the category I belonged in.

EIGHT.

Week 3, Q. 1

I am doing example 1.

"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 neighboorhood, and it will decrease property values.5"

Argument? Yes.
Conclusion: My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.
Additional premises needed? "Since, 2,3,4, and 5, 1."
Identify any subargument: All of them are really independent and don't link to each other, but support the conclusion. It would be better if they linked.
Good argument: Not really it's just a bunch of piled up "facts" that go to support the conclusion.

Could have been better by actually linking the 4 parts.

The exercise is useful in a sense that it helps you to try to identify the different parts of the structure. However, it was kind of confusing for me to understand and to fill it out. I am a little unsure of how I would change it to make it into a legit argument.

SEVEN.

Week 2, Q. 3

I found the part about leaders in groups and their decision making and effectiveness quite interesting. I think that different types of leaders are needed for different things and the way they lead and the decisions they make will impact or affect each group accordingly. I think I particularly found this piece interesting because while I was in high school, I was in the student government. Student government has no harsh rules (laws) or anything, but they are in charge of makin many decisions that will affect their fellow schoolmates.

Obviously, high school leadership is a democracy. We consult with our peers to come to a good decision, as well as with our teachers and faculty. This is most important I think because it takes away some of the complaining that can happen in different situations.

In the case of a person like the principle or the superintendant of a school district, it is not so much democracy, as it is a communist type of leadership. With their two jobs, they have the option to make decisions and really have the end choice in the matter.

I think it is really important to know about leadership roles and how things are run for many reasons. its very important so you can know what is happening and why. & especially because if you are allowed to voice your opinion, like in a democracy, you should utilize it.

SIX.

Week 2, Q. 2

At first I, like I mentioned in my previous post, I thought this was a bit confusing, but now I think I'm understanding it better. In order for it to be a valid argument, it has to be an argument that will have both a true premises as well as a true conclusion. Valid arguments will never have a true premises and a false conclusion because that would make it invalid. Usually when an argument is valid, you will notice that it is based on facts or things that are plausible, rather than someone's own ideas or opinions.

Valid Argument:

In order to get your drivers license, you have to be atleast 16, pass the permit test, take behind the wheel classes and take the driven test.
Justina has her license.
Therefore, Justina passed the permit test, the behind the wheel instruction, the triven test at DMV and is also at least age 16.

This is valid because as drivers, we know these tests have to be taken in order to obtain the license, so if one has a license, we can conclude that Justina has taken the tests.

A strong argument is different in the fact that the premises can be true while the conclusion is not. This means the premises and argument can be pretty strong while the conclusion doesn't quite support it or agree.

Strong Argument:

Nikki passed the permit test, behind the wheel instruction, and is 16.
Nikki is now ready to take the driven test.
Nikki will pass the driven test at DMV.

This is a very strong premises because it would PROBABLY lead up to the conclusion, but the conclusion is somehting that can also be false. There is no guarantee that these premises will lead to that conclusion.

FIVE.

Week 2, Q. 1

I understand the idea of the arguments and also the ways to test for a good argument. I just seemed to have a hard time getting an argument formed in my head and put out there in a way that it makes sense and could be tested for good or bad. I tried for this one and hopefully, this one works out.

Argument: Glasses are for people who have vision issues and my sister Nikki wears glasses. So Nikki has vision issues.

Analysis: So, the premises of my argument are true. The conclusion here is also true. My sister has pretty bad vision and wears glasses. But this is not really a good arguement because there is a way that the conclusion could be both true and false. Basically saying, there are exceptions to this. I didn't say that glasses are only for people with vision issues, becasue they're not! Some people wear glasses that are not prescribed to look cool or because it goes with their outfits.

FOUR.

Week 2, Discussion Q. 3

I am going to talk about fallacies, focusing on the appeal to authority. I think the appeal to authority is used so often and it's such an attention getter and completely silly, if you ask me.  These are appeals that use authority figures who are basically irrelevant and not qualified with the issue. Chris Brown had a contract with Doublemint Gum, dancing in their ads. Kim Kardashian is eating burgers in her bikini in Carl's Jr. commercials. These fallacies are appeals to authority because they really have no real place to make you believe that their product is good. Kim Kardashian eating a burger is not a real reason to go out and try the new sandwich at Carl's Jr. because she is not a chef, a professional food critic, or even in culinary school. She has no true authority in this position, but because she is a celebrity and people follow her and mimic the things she does, they go to Carl's Jr. This is a common sales tactic, and you can catch many celebs in many ads or representing certain products that do not pertain directly to what is being sold or talked about.

THREE

Week 2, Discussion Q. 2

Vague/Ambiguous

I think quite often we hear really vague or ambiguous statements in our day to day life. I notice that a lot of stuff that is vague on tv, in ads and such because they catch our attention, but dont really give full meaning to all that they're saying. Such as the fast talking exclusions at the end of commercials and the tampon/pad commercials with blue liquid? Weird. But for my example, I work in a hair salon, and a really vague statement that came from a client was that she needed hair loss shampoo because "she was bald." That statement falls under the category of vague because the client who came in was not CLEARLY bald, like with no hairs on her head, nor was she clearly NOT bald, like a full head of thick hair. She would have been better off saying she is balding or losing hair to sound less vague.