Chapter 8: Generalities

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading this week, not already discussed, that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

A concept that I found interesting in Chapter 8 was the concept of generalities. Chapter 8 discusses about two kinds of generalities: precise and vague. Precise generalities deals with more specific and accurate information. It is much clearer whether the statement is true or false when using a precise generality. Vague generalities uses unclear words such as: many, some, and few. Vague generalities are so unclear that most of the time it is considered to be an invalid in arguments or claims.
Example of vague generality:
"Many people will not graduate from UC San Diego."
The word many is vague, and is a subjective amount that varies from person to person.
Example of precise generality:
"40% of students from UC San Diego will not graduate. Therefore, I will not graduate."
This example is more specific in amount but the conclusion can still be false.


There are a lot of ways one can discuss about all or a part of something without being precise or specifying in amount.
Examples of unspecific amount:
All tigers growl.
Almost all tigers growl.
Very few children likes vegetables.

The First Major Course Assignment

2). Discuss the usefulness of the first or second major course assignment. Use specific examples.

The first major course assignment was very useful because we got to interact with a group of people and write about the materials we learned in class. We actually got to discuss the topics that were presented and asked questions that we need answers for in person. It was interesting to see how we would all be able to cooperate and function as a group of strangers. Being able to interact in person made the assignment much easier. We discussed everything in detail and we were able to have a full on discussion with one another. We were also able to establish how to divide the work up and if there were any problems we could just talk it out. If there were any questions about anything someone was always able to answer it. Everyone did their parts because the group grade relied on everyone's participation. Any lack of participation would automatically alter the grade of the group and no one would want to jeopardize that.

Chapter 8: General Claims and Their Contradictories

1). Discuss one concept in Chapter 8 that you found useful. Please explain the concept and give a personal example or personal story.

General claims and their contradictions is mentioned in chapter 8. General claims deals with phrases with "all" and phrases with "some." "All" means "every single one, no exceptions." The phrases "all" and "some" are used differently depending on the argument. There are times when "all" is used as "Every single one, and there is at least one." "Some" means "At least one." Some is sometimes meant as "At least one, but not all." A personal example would be a situation that occurred in high school where I went on a school field trip to the museum. There was a lot of exhibit to cover and many of the students wanted to separate into different exhibits. The teacher did not allow that because he said that all will be together at all times, with no exceptions. Depending on the argument "all" can mean "Every one, and there is at least one" so it is possible that the students could go off on their own in groups. It really depends on how the argument is presented and how one receives the message.

Attempts to refute that are bad arguments

In many cases there are some attempts to refute that are just bad arguments. There are three ways to refute that are bad arguments: slippery slope, ridicule and strawman. A slippery slope may occur when one attempt to reduce to the absurd. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect. Slippery slopes adds false or dubious premises. Ridicule is considered a worthless device. It may cause bitterness amongst whomever is arguing and create enemies. It is hard to tell the difference between reducing to the absurd and ridicule. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between them because not enough of an argument is given to see how the absurd conclusion follows, which makes it sound like a ridicule.  When it is time to judge whether an argument is a ridicule, a slippery slope or otherwise, one should not reject and start consuming the comments. Once one consumes the comments, one should take it as a challenge to make his or her own arguments better. One of the worst way to refute is use the strawman method. According to the Epstein text a strawman occurs when someone makes a claim, and the other person tries to refute it by putting words in that person's mouth. Overall, one should be prepared to defend their argument at all times. 

Chatper 7 Concepts

Chapter seven in the "Critical Thinking" textbook by Richard L. Epstein discusses about counterarguments. A counterargument is an objection to an objection and it is also known as a rebuttal. A counterargument may seek to doubt on the facts of one or more of the premises presented. The two concepts in chapter 7 that caught my attention are raising objections and refuting an argument. When one raises an objection, it is a way to show that an argument is bad. When one objects then another argument is formed that questions one of the premises. It may also show that a premise is doubtful or that an argument is weak.  There are two ways to refute an argument: directly and indirectly. The direct ways of refuting an argument are: show that at least one of the premises is dubious, show that the argument isn't valid or strong, and show that the conclusion is false. There are times when one cannot decided whether which premises is false or dubious, but one knows that there is something wrong with the premises. In this case one will have to refute indirectly by showing a person's beliefs leading to an unwanted conclusion. Raising an objection and refuting an argument is very common in arguments.

Compound Claims

There are many claims that one may use in an argument. The two concepts that caught my attention in chapter 6 was compound claims and conditionals. Within compound claims there are sub points of it such as: alternative claims, contradictory of a claim, and false dilemmas. According to the Epstein text a compound claim is "one composed of other claims, but which has to be viewed as just one claim." Words can link two or more claims together which can form a compound claim. There are also sentences with two or more claims that are not considered a compound claim. An alternative is a claim that is part of an "or" claim. A contradictory of a claim is one that has the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances. Another word for contradictory is negation of a claim. A false dilemma is a type of logical fallacy. A false dilemma is a situation that involves two alternatives that are considered, when in fact there are three other options. It is considered a bad use of excluding possibilities where the "or" claim is false or implausible. Claims that are considered conditionals when it can be rewritten as an "if...then..."claims that must have the same truth-value.

Bad Appeals to Authority

A concept in Chapter 5 caught my eyes called, bad appeals to authority. An appeal to authority is when someone accepts a claim just because a person they believe to have an authority to do so have stated the claim. We consider an appeal to authority as a fallacy when:

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 concept is interesting because many people tend to believe in something easily, which would also cause many others to follow in their footsteps and believe as well. When people accept claims from people who are not authorities on a subject, then they are mislead and it is considered a bad appeal to authority. There is no justification in a claim if a person is unqualified to do so and or not an expert. Many people considers other people's claim to be true just because they believe that the person stating the claim has the authority in doing so. They are accepting a claim to be true without adequate evidence. There is also a bad appeal to common belief which usually means, that a person mistakenly accepts a claim to be true just because a lot of other people have done so. Just because someone say something is true, it does not mean they are or have the authority to say it is true.