Week 6 Question 2

2). Concerning Section C in Chapter 5, Advertising on the Internet. Please find a piece of advertising on the internet, provide a link on your blog, a screenshot, or include the advertisement in your post so the class can see what you are discussing. You should then relate the piece of advertising back to the concepts in Sections A & B in chapter 5 and discuss.

http://dm.trysensa.com/dms2437/?gclid=CLyBjraXxqsCFRRSgwod5jkK5A

This link is for Sensa Weight Loss System, I chose a weight loss advertisement because I feel like those advertisements are the ones that pop up the most on the television and on the internet. Eat weight loss program advertisement is essentially the same yet they claim to be very different from each other. This weight loss system advertisement claims that a person can lose weight by not going to the gym and not, not changing your diet, and not mapping out food intake. This advertisement says that it is clinically proven with 100% customer satisfaction, yet I find that very hard to believe. Referring back to my personal experience, I find it entirely impossible to lose weight without doing anything. Although I have not tried this product, my personal experience tells me not to believe this advertisement. Although I do not know these people who are advertising this product, I find it entirely hard to believe them. Look at Kirstie Ally, she was on what Jenny Craig or something and apparently lost 100 pounds or something like that and while on the commercials, was showing up on tabloids looking 100 bigger than before. All of these weight loss programs and their advertisements always always ALWAYS says in the smallest font possible that results are not typical (http://www.frankwbaker.com/dietad3.jpg), which therefore means that there is definite reason not to believe this particular advertisement. Now hey some people may be able to use this product and actually see results, but not everyone and definitely not the kind of results like the people who have the "success stories." Most of this is due to my lack of knowledge of who writes these advertisements and who is makes these claims, but based on my personal experience (which is the most reliable source of information) I do not believe this advertisement.

Week 6 Question 1

1). In our last discussion week we talked about Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion (page 202) and Content Fallacies (page 201). This week I would like you to discuss the idea of repairing arguments. For this question, please come up with an argument that needs to be repaired. Look over the examples on pages 63-67. Come up with your own example and 'discuss' it as they do in the text. To accomplish this, you should understand the Principle of Rational Discussion and the concept of Repairing Arguments.

 Original Argument:
Any who drinks alcohol all day every day is an alcoholic, therefore Mandy is an alcoholic.

This argument is very weak because it is missing a premise, fortunately this argument can be repaired to the point of making the argument stronger or valid. The premise that is missing is  "Mandy drinks alcohol all day every day." Without this premise present the conclusion could turn out false due to the weakness of the argument to begin with.

The stronger argument would then turn into:
Any who drinks alcohol all day every day is an alcoholic. Mandy drinks alcohol all day every day, therefore she is an alcoholic.

Another example of repairing an argument is: Sean is wearing green and yellow, which means he must be a Oakland A's fan.

This argument is definitely weak because there are multiple teams out there whose team colors are green and yellow for instance the Green Bay Packers.

The repaired argument should be something like:
Sean is wearing green and yellow to the Giants vs A's game, therefore he must be an Oakland A's fan.

Week 4 Question 3

I have always heard about fallacies throughout literature, but never really knew exactly what they were or what problems they cause, but now reading Chapter 11 in Epstein I understand more.
A fallacy is a a bad argument of one of the types that have been agreed to be typically unrepairable. Or in other words a fallacy is something in literature that breaks the rules that must be followed throughout literature, that cannot usually be fixed. There are three categories of fallacies, which are structural fallacies (bad arguments due to their form), content fallacies (bad arguments due to their need for repairing of false dubious premises), and the Principle of Rational Discussion ( bad arguments due to irrational discussion or misleading discussion).
Within each category contains multiple, specific fallacies. Some structural fallacies include: arguing backwards with no, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, etc. Some content fallacies include: drawing the line, false dilemma, slippery slope, mistaking the person for the argument, etc. Some fallacies that violate the Principle of Rational Discussion include: begging the question,  strawman, relevance, etc.

Week 4 Question 2

2). Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion (page 202) and Content Fallacies (page 201). Pick one, explain the fallacy in your own words, then give a real world example that you have heard in the past. (You may need to do additional 'research' for the fallacy that you have chosen if the concept is not clear from the text. You can 'google' the particular fallacy you have chosen for an additional explanation).

A content fallacy called the slippery slope fallacy is the mistaken thought that if A happens then B and C must come next, or follow.  Although this fallacy does not always play its part in some situations like with pregnancy for example (if you keep the baby of course or do not have a miscarriage) getting pregnant leads to gaining weight, which leads to having a big belly, which leads to giving birth, which then of course leads to having a baby and ends with being a mom.
However, this fallacy is used a lot in many situations as well. For example (and this is just something I am coming up with on the spot that I am sure is truth to someone), if someone eats a lot of healthy food, that person therefore think he or she is going to lose weight, which will then turn bring up his or her confidence, which will then allow them to get a boyfriend or girlfriend.
However, this slippery slope falls into the fallacy section because this person is not considering the outside parts to it. Just because someone is going to start eating a lot of healthy foods does not mean he or she is going to start losing weight; they also need to take into consideration going to the gym, working out, gaining muscle opposed to fat, cutting out fast food munchie runs, not eating at chain restaurants, etc. This fallacy is not always the easiest to see, because in situations like the one above, people just think well if I eat healthy I am going to lose a bunch of weight and the outside factors are overlooked.

Week 4 Question 1

Concerning 221 - 225 Complex Arguments for Analysis: Page 225 contains Exercises on the Structure of Arguments. Please choose one of the 5 exercises and complete the exercise in one post to your blog. After you have completed the exercise, discuss whether or not this exercise was useful.

I chose Exercise 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.

This argument is definitely a claim because anyone could see this statement as true or false.
(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 and traffic is always congested
(5) The schools are overcrowded and new ones can't be built fast enough

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

Addition Premises?: I do not really think this argument needs any more premises because there is enough evidence and support with all of these premises to make the conclusion true and make the claim strong.

Subargument?: There's not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people, therefore the infrastructure of the city can't handle more than a million.

Good Argument?: This argument, I believe is a good argument, it has all parts of a good argument, and I think that this argument is even a strong one, because there is possibility that the premises could be true and conclusion false.

I do not know if this exercise was helpful because I do not know if I did it right. If I did do it right then it was a little helpful, but more so confusing as to what to do exactly. If I did it wrong then this exercise was just plain confusing.

Week 3 Question 2

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

An argument is only valid when there is absolutely no way that the evidence of that argument could be true, while the conclusion of the argument could be false.

Valid Argument Example: Vegetables make people healthy because they contain a lot of vitamins and nutrients. Josh eats a lot of vegetables, therefore he is healthy.
Research has been done to prove that eating vegetables makes people healthier, which is why parents force kids to eat their vegetables. Since Josh eats vegetables, he has to be healthy because vegetables make people healthy.

A strong argument is when the evidence of the argument is true, but there a possibility however big or small that the conclusion of the argument could be false.

Strong Argument Example: In the United States of America, the legal age for drinking is 21, therefore no one under 21 drinks.
This is only a strong argument opposed to a valid argument because there are definitely people under the age of 21 who drink. The evidence of the argument is very true, but the conclusion at least from my observation is false.

Week 3 Question 1

1). Concerning part "C" in chapter 3 of the Epstein text, The Tests for an Argument to Be Good - there are three tests an argument must pass in order for the argument to be good. There are many examples in the book on pages 42-45. Please come up with an argument just like the examples, and discuss it using the three tests on Page 42. Keep in mind that your test should be different from the examples in the book and that you should discuss the three criteria in detail. This post may be quite a bit more than 150 words. In addition, it is imperative that you understand the concepts contained within the 3 tests for an argument (page 42).

Argument: Good video games are addictive, and Dead Space is a good video game, therefore Dead Space is addictive. 

In order for this argument to be a good argument it must pass the three tests: that the premises of the argument are true (meaning the parts that relate to the conclusion of the argument making it strong or valid are correct) , the premises are more plausible than the conclusion (meaning that the premises alone can stand true by themselves and do not have to lead to the conclusion for them to be true) , and the argument is valid or strong (meaning the stated argument is either able to validate truth or it is just a confident statement, that could be proven true).
Test One: The premises of the argument, which are that video games are addictive is true because it has been proven by researchers. Also, only the good video games are addictive because no one plays the bad video games therefore they cannot be good. Since Dead Space is an actual video game, this statement is proven to be true as well. However, due to ratings from players and reviewers of the game, Dead Space being a good video game is also true.
Test Two: The premises of the argument are much more plausible than the conclusion because there are actual facts and information to prove that the premises are plausible, more than that Dead Space is addictive, only because there is not any outward research that states that Dead Space the video is actually addictive, although it is a good argument because the premises are so plausible.
Test Three: The argument is valid or strong because it passes the other two tests. In this case the argument is strong because there is no valid data that proves that Dead Space is addictive, but it could definitely be proven.

Week 2 Question 3

3). Pick one concept from the reading (either Epstein or the Small Group Comm book) and discuss it in detail.

Descriptive claims that tell the truth (facts). Prescriptive claims tell what should be.
I feel that this is a common mistake that people make all the time. People always hear others saying what should be or what people should do and just because one believes something does not make that person right or his or her belief true.

Descriptive claim:
Smoking and drinking are unhealthy habits. This is true because there have been actual studies and there is research that demonstrates that smoking and drinking lead to unhealthy results (death, car accidents, cancer, abuse, etc.)

Prescriptive claim:
Drinking and smoking should be illegal to all people under the age of 25. This is a prescriptive claim because it is what someone thinks should be. This is not truth and this is not a fact, it is the thought and belief of a person who thinks that drinking and smoking should not be legal until all persons are the age of 25.

I think that this is an important subject to learn about because people usually tend to feel what they think/believe is right/true and that everyone should follow what they think, instead of the truth.

Week 2 Question 2

2). Use an example from everyday life: Describe a vague sentence or ambiguous sentence you have heard recently. Where did you hear this sentence? An advertisement? Was it a conversation with a friend? What qualified the sentence as vague or ambiguous?

A vague or ambiguous sentence is one that can be interpreted in more ways than one and is lacking detail, unless the sentence is made more clear. 
Vague Sentence: The other night my boyfriend and his friend were playing video games and I was in the other room. While I was laying in bed I heard my boyfriend say "you can tap it, and you stomp like crazy". Once I heard this vague sentence I came out to the living room and asked what he was talking about. My boyfriend was talking about a button on the video game controller his friend could press to make the character in the video game stomp his foot on the ground to kill a zombie. This sentence was a vague one because if I had not gotten any clarification on what my boyfriend was talking about, I would not have known that he was talking to his friend about a button for video game purposes. The sentence also qualified as being vague because there were not specific details about where or what his friend should tap to make an action happen. If no clarification was provided I could have thought that my boyfriend was referring to drugs in the sense of how drugs are used (not saying that he uses drugs) or something else completely off topic to video games. Therefore the sentence not only lacked clarification, but also details.