The Usefulness of the Second Assignment

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 so well before.
While doing my part of the assignment, I noticed that the organization that we chose had their own claims and arguments embedded into their advertisements and messages. At first, I didn't think it would be easy to spot these claims and arguments. But after re-reading parts of the text and applying those concepts towards the organizations messages, it became easier to point out those claims that the organization uses to persuade people into supporting them. I would not necessarily call this a bad or deceptive behavior by the organization, but rather a clever and useful strategy.

General Claims and Generalities

General Claims
According to Epstein, a general claim is one "that asserts something in a general way about all or part of a collection." (Epstein, 394). Some of these claims may seem valid, but they cannot be assumed as strong or valid arguments mainly depending on the wording of the argument. For example, "All children like to play with toys. Allen likes to play with toys. Therefore, Allen is a child." The reason this is not true is because Allen may not be a child. Epstein explained how and when to use "all", "some", "no" and "only" in an argument. When using "all" in an argument, it means every single possibility, no exceptions, or every single possibility and there is at least one. "Some" is meant as "at least one" and sometimes "at least one, but not all."

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

Conditionals

Conditionals involve conclusions that depend on whether or not the premise(s) occur. Like counter-arguments, there are direct and indirect ways of reasoning. According to Epstein, the direct way states that if event A happens then event B will happen; event A happened, so event B will happen. For example, if Billy calls, he will meet Tim at the mall; Billy called, so he and Tim met up at the mall.

The indirect ways of reasoning with conditionals are quite opposite of the direct ways. Similar to the the direct way, if event A happens then event B will happen. However, here is where they differ. If event B does not occur, then event A did not occur prior to that. Using the same example as before let's say Billy and Tim did not meet at the mall. Therefore, Billy must not have called.

Chapter 7

Chapter 7 talks about counter-arguments and the different types of ways to refute, or discredit, arguments.

Refuting an argument directly
According to Epstein, there are three ways of directly refuting an argument. One way is to show that at least one of the premises is dubious or doubtful. A premise that is not valid hurts the whole argument. Another direct way of refuting an argument is to show that the argument isn't valid or strong. Additional to disproving a premise, proving that the conclusion is invalid would make the argument weak.

Refuting an argument indirectly
Indirectly refuting an argument involves showing that a false conclusion follows from the premises. In doing so, one must be able to create a good argument to counter the bad argument. To counter the bad argument, one must make sure that any counter claims to point out the dubious premises are plausible.

Chapter 6

After skimming through Chapter 6 before writing this post, I felt as if I skimmed through a geometry text book with what looked like theorem and postulates with all of the "If A and then B..." terminology. But once I actually read it, I found some of the information understandable and useful.

Compound Claims
Compound claims are claims that consist of multiple claims but are viewed as only one claim. An example of a compound claim is a sporting event. "Either Team A will win or Team B will." The argument as one is that there will be one winner despite there being more than one claim.

False Dilemma
A false dilemma is the incorrect use of excluding possible conclusions where the "or" claim is false or improbable. The "or" claim is not necessarily the only possible "or" claim, but is used to attempt to strengthen the actual claim trying to be argued. For example, let's imagine a pair of newlyweds. The wife complains to the husband about his old car that he never uses. She wants him to either donate it or just have it sent to the junkyard. He refuses to do so, saying that it was his first car and cannot part with it. She responds by saying, "It's either me or the car!" She presents him with a false dilemma situation as she forces him to do what she says.

Online Advertisements

Despite being an advertisement for fast food, it gives the subliminal message and image of sexual practices. Businesses and companies, like 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 profoundly, 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. Ads 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.