Advertisement on the Internet

'
In this advertisement above, Macy's is advertising that their products are at its "lowest prices of the season." It is hard to believe that this advertisement is true because we do not know if the prices are the lowest compared to other stores. We also do not know if what Macy's compare their prices to. There are many companies with different products and prices and just because Macy's say that their prices are low, it does not mean it is lower than another company's prices. Macy's should specify why their products is at a low price or compare their prices to something else. From my own experience, online shopping is different than shopping at the actual store. There are many products that are at the stores rather than online or even vice versa sometimes. Some prices are different too because some Macy's sell their product their own way. It is hard to trust money transaction online because we do not know for sure if we will receive the products that we purchase. There are many scams for online purchasing and no one wants to get their identity stolen. I personally think that Macy's is a little pricey, even for their sale items. Many people may believe in this advertisement because Macy's is a very huge and well known company, which gives them authority. Macy's is known everywhere like in newspaper, television and magazines. Overall, I have found lower prices on clothing at other stores compared to Macy's.

Week 5 Post 1: Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion

As we already learned previously, the principle of rational discussion is a discussion where we assume the other person who is discussing with us or whose arguments we are reading: knows about the subject under discussion, is able and willing to reason well, and is not lying. We also learned that a fallacy is usually incorrect argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. There is guide to repair arguments that one can follow. When an argument is given and needs to be repair, we can make it stronger by adding a premise or conclusion if it satisfies all three of the following:

1. The argument becomes stronger or valid.
2. The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.
3.The premise is more plausible than the conclusion.

If the argument is considered valid or strong, we may then delete a premise if appropriate and if it does not make the argument worse.


Example of an argument that needs repair:
Studying before an exam will help you receive a good grade.
Molly studied the night before.
Therefore, Molly received a good grade.

This argument is considered a good argument but it might not be strong enough because the premises leading to the conclusion is not strong. One may say that anyone that studies for an exam can get a good grade but for some people it is different. Everyone studies differently and studying effects everyone in a different way. One may study a lot but still get a bad grade for many different reasons. A premise can be added like, "Molly studied consistently for many nights and also remembered all the materials that was needed for the test." This argument could have been more specific too so we know what Molly is studying for. Therefore, it is possible for Molly to have received a good grade but it is not definite if she did or not.

Week 3 Post 3: Chapter 11 Concept

The concept that caught my attention this week was structural fallacies. I have never heard of the word fallacies before but now that I know more about it, I realized that I use it a lot. There are many type of fallacies such as; bad appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, false dilemma and many more. An argument is considered a fallacy only if the premises is not to be relied on and no other premises support the conclusion. In order to have a good fallacy one would need to structure it well. Everyone uses fallacy in their everyday life, so learning about fallacy is really important. In this chapter, I  also learned that there are different ways to violate the principle of rational discussion. There are four parts: begging the question, strawman, shifting the burden of proof, and relevance. When begging the question on must convince in their argument that the claim is true. Strawman is most often misinterpreted and can be easily knocked down by putting words into other people's mouth. Relevance is when a premise is irrelevant to the conclusion.

Week 3 Post 2: Fallacies

A fallacy is usually incorrect argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. While the premises may be true, the conclusion could be false, making it a fallacy. A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form without an understanding of the argument's content.

A bad appeal to authority is a fallacy with the following structure:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.


This fallacy is created when Person A does not have the authority to make claims about subject S. The person in question is not an expert. The claim may be true but because the person making the claim is not qualified to make the claim, the claim can be false. There are no rational reason to accept the claim as true.


Example:
Jack: Do you know the sex of your baby yet?
Jill: I just found out at 1pm today from my psychic Lauren that my baby is going to be a boy. 
Jack: And you believed her? 
Jill: Why of course, why wouldn't I? She's a certified California Master Psychic.  

Jill believed that her baby will be a boy because her psychic told her so. Jack think it's ridiculous that she believes in someone that does not have the credibility in his eyes to make such an assumption. So just because Jill believes in her psychic, it doesn't mean other people will agree with it. This makes the claim a bad appeal to authority. 

Week 3 Post 1: Complex Argument for Analysis

Question #3:

Las Vegas has too many people. There's not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people. And the infrastructure of the city can't handle more than a million: The streets are overcrowded, and traffic is always congested; the schools are overcrowded, and new ones can't be built fast enough. We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.

1. Las Vegas has too many people.
2. There's not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people.
3. The infrastructure of the city can't handle more than a million
4. The streets are overcrowded,
5. Traffic is always congested;
6. The schools are overcrowded,
7. And new ones can't be build fast enough.
8. We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.

Argument? Yes this is an argument.

Conclusion: We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.

Additional premises needed? All the premises supports the conclusion but it is possible to add details and facts to support each premises.

Identify any subargument: 2,3,4,5,6 and 7 are independent and support the conclusion.

All in all the argument was good but the argument could have been stronger if the author wrote more details to support each premises. This exercise was helpful because it helped me break down how to analyze an argument step by step. Now I understand how to analyze an argument better.

Week 2 Post 3: Chapter 3 Concept

One of the concept that I was interested in was the reading about the different types of leadership. There were four different types of leadership that were discussed in the book. The four different types of leadership are authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire. An authoritarian leadership is when the leader of a group makes a decision without consulting with the rest of the group. A consultative leadership is when the leader actually listens to what the group had to say before making the final decision. A participative leadership is when the leader shares their decision making with the whole group. The goal is achieved with everyone's thoughts in mind as a whole. In this leadership, everyone participate and is considered to be a leader. The last leadership the book discussed about was the laissez-faire leadership. In this leadership everyone agrees and just go with the flow.  Leadership plays an important role in everyday life. It is a key essential to survive in this society.

2). Discuss Strong versus Valid Arguments in detail. Give an example of each from everyday life.

For an argument to be valid the premises has to be false with no possible way for it to be true and at the same time the conclusion has to be false as well. For an argument to be strong, the premises has to be true but the conclusion can be false.

Valid Argument Example:
Mari is a girl. All girls wear dresses to school dances. So Mari wore a dress. This is a valid argument because Mari is a girl and she did wear a dress. The first and third premises is true but the second premises is false because not all girls wear dresses to the dance or even in general.

Strong Argument Example:
Every animal that have wings can fly. Therefore, chickens can fly because they have wings. This is a strong argument because not all animals with wings can fly. So the conclusion can be false.

W3: D1 bad Argument

There are three tests that are used to consider if an argument is a good argument or a bad one, according to the Epstein text. The premises are plausible, the premises are more plausible than the conclusion, and whether the argument is valid or strong.

One should speak the language that their ancestors spoke. Mark's parents speak Spanish. Therefore, he should be able to speak Spanish.

It is possible that Mark is not able to speak Spanish. Just because his parents can speak Spanish, it does not mean that he can. The conclusion may be true but it is a bad argument, because the first premise is false. It is false because his parents may not have taught him or even wanted him to learn language to begin with. Everyone has their own way of raising their son and or daughter. We don't know his background and if anything he may be disabled, in which he could be mute or deaf. There are many factors that can prevent Mark from speaking Spanish.

Week 1- Post 3 Chapter 2 Concept

The concept that really caught my attention was in the Epstein text "What Are We Arguing About?" It really caught my attention because arguments are formed from simple communication issues. We all know that everyone has their own way of speaking and communicating with others. Everyone thinks differently so some people may interpret others in a different way. The different level of communication with others may cause stress and annoyance to oneself because it's hard to fully understand someone else's thought. Subjective claims, objective claims, the use of being ambiguous and vague, and even defining something is discussed in this chapter. Many people including me, confuses subjective and objective claims. Arguments are stirred up when one can't understand another, especially since everyone has their own opinion. Being vague and ambiguous occurs in one's everyday life. The lack of the knowledge of many vocabulary also is a huge factor in the frustration of communication.  We need to strive to understand these concepts that causes us miscommunicate with one another more so arguments won't form.

Week 1 Post 2: Vague and Ambiguous

Vague sentences are not clear and definite in thought. They aren't fully expressed and or understood. In this case only the speaker would fully understand and know what he/she is saying while leaving the listener out of the loop. Earlier this week my friend met a guy and I asked her to tell me about him and all she said was "He was a strange-looking guy." That description of him was so vague because I didn't get to know anything about him and it wasn't detailed enough. "Strange-looking" can be anything depending on how a person view things. I could think that "strange-looking" may be that his hair line is receiving and my friend could of thought that he had bad posture. She should have gave more description about the guy and I would like there too be more information from her response.

Ambiguous sentences are sentences that can interpret into two different meaning. My Comm20 teacher once told me "Woman without her man is nothing," but it can mean two different things depending on how you say it and even by using punctuation. It could mean "Woman, without her man, is nothing," or "Woman, without her man, is nothing."

Week 1 Post 1: Subjective and Objective Claims

Subjective and objective claims can be confusing because they are both statements that can be true or false. Subjective claims are statements or expressions that invokes personal opinions or feelings. A subjective claim cannot be proved right or wrong by any accepted criteria.
Here are a few examples of how I have used subjective claims:
-Touching a cockroach is scary.
-Fried chicken is better than grilled chicken.
Although we all know that bugs can be touched and many people people eat chicken, all these claims cannot be proven true or false because everyone has their own opinion and feelings towards a claim. Here are some counter-claims to my statements that can be easily made:
-Grilled chicken is tastier than fried chicken.
-It's interesting to touch a cockroach.
Not everyone likes fried chicken or think cockroach are scary because everyone has their own perspective in life. 
Objective claims is different from subjective claims because they are actual facts that can be proven either true or false.

Now that I actually know what a subjective claim and an objective claim is, I realize that I use them a lot and daily. An example that I have used of objective claim would be that Forever 21 is having a dress sale of $10 each. This is an objective claim because it's not my opinion but is based on the store's advertisement.