Week of September 25 Question3

I found something interesting in chapter 4 where Epstein describes the unrepairable arguments. According to Epstein we don’t repair an argument if there is no argument there. The argument is so lacking in coherence that there is nothing obvious to add. A premise it uses is false or dubious and cannot be deleted. Two of its premises are contradictory, and neither can be deleted. The obvious premise to add would make the argument weak. The obvious premise to add to make the argument strong or valid is false. The conclusion is clearly false. . The book gives an example of an unrepairable argument about alcoholism and how it is a disease that people can overcome within themselves but wants more treatment center to be built. The two claims that alcoholism and treatment centers should be built contradict each other, which is one of the things that makes an argument unrepairable. When an argument contradicts itself within its claim it is fair to say that the argument is no good and is unrepairable.

Discussion week sep 25-oct1 post #1 Repairing Arguments

             In the textbook, I find Chapter 4 to be very useful and interesting. This chapter teaches me about several methods on how to fix arguments that are weak and lacking in an effective premise or an effective conclusion. Epstein talks about ways to repair an argument.  As stated in the book the guide to repairing Argument give an implicit argument that is apparently defective, we are justified in adding a premise or conclusion if it satisfies 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.

For example: Humans cannot fly. Therefore Amy cannot fly. This is a logical argument but still needs repairing. The only sentence that needs to be added is that “Amy is a human” Since know we know Amy is a human, therefore the argument is valid and strong.

Discuusion week 11-17 Post 3

  Something interesting I have found in the chapter 11 is the steps of analyzing complex arguments. First of all we need to read the passage, and decide whether it’s an argument. If it is an argument then identify the conclusion, then number the every sentence or clause that might be a claim. Then for each numbered part: We need to check if it is ambiguous or too vague to be claim. If its vague is there a way to clear that up.  Next step identify the claims that lead directly to the conclusion. Then identify the sub arguments that are meant to support the claims that lead directly to the conclusion. Furthermore, see if the obvious objections have been considered. Note which of the claims in the argument are unsupported and evaluate. Evaluate each argument as valid on the scale from strong to weak. Is there a way to repair the fallacy?  Evaluate each  argument as valid from strong to weak.

Discussion 2 week 11-17 Exercise 2

Exercise #2 Page 225

“I am on my way to school. I left five minutes late.  Traffic is heavy. Therefore I’ll be late for class. So I might as well stop and get breakfast” Epstein

First we need to make sure if this is an argument: Yes

 This is an argument because this person is talking about why he or she is late for class. That person is going to school. He or she going to school, leaving five minutes late, and going through heavy traffic are claims. However, I think he or she being late for class is a claim as well because it supports the conclusion which is deciding to get breakfast.
Conclusion:
The conclusion for this argument is stopping to get breakfast due to being late.

I think a premise is needed to explain why he or she should get breakfast. If he or she did forget to eat breakfast before leaving the house, there should be premises mentioning that. If there isn't, you can and might as well add a different conclusion. The sub argument is this that she is getting late because of heavy traffic. I do not think this is a good argument because he or she did not state why he or she should get breakfast. If there was a premises that showed that he or she had a reason to get breakfast, then I would say this is a good argument. He or she also had the choice to still go to class without eating breakfast. Either way, he or she will be late.
I actually found this exercise useful because it tells you that you should be aware about your conclusion. In a way, it's a lesson teaching us that we should think before we act.  

Discussion 2 week 11-17 Violating the principle of Rational Discussion

Begging the Question: is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or we can assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of reasoning is explained in this form: Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is, it could be directly or indirectly. Then the claim C is true. This reasoning is a fallacy because assuming that the conclusion is true directly or indirectly in the premise does not show evidence for conclusion. For example: If a person say God exists and other person ask how do know? Then the other person says because it is in the bible. So if it is in the bible we should believe it. So point of the claim is to convince that a claim is true. So the premises of the argument have to be more plausible than the conclusion

Discussion Week 4-10 #2 Leadership

This week I have found something interesting section about the role of leadership. There are many ways to  define leadership. Some might say it is guiding or directing the group. The book gives the definition of leadership as the exercise of interpersonal influence towards the attainment of goals. Which simply means to me that the leader simply gives the necessary motivation to his or her group members. Some or all leaders of the group tend to have one of the four decision-making styles. The four decision-making styles included authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire. Consultative leadership is  that the leader takes the decision by asking the others. Basically it’s like democracy: to the people, by the people, for the people. Everyone’s opinion is heard by the leader, then he or she takes the final decision. Authoritarian leaders, also known as autocratic leaders, provide clear expectations for what needs to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done. There is also a clear division between the leader and the followers. Authoritarian leaders make decisions independently with little or no input from the rest of the group. Participative leadership is when leader participates and guide other people of the group, it can also be democratic. Laissez faire leadership is when leaders offer little or no guidance to group members and leave decision-making up to group members.

Discussion Week 4-10 #2 Strong vs Valid arguments

Valid argument:  An argument is valid if there is no possible way for its premises to be true, and its conclusion to be false at the same time. Some valid arguments are bad. Not all good arguments are valid, and an argument could be either valid or not valid. Also not all valid arguments are good, a premise could be implausible. For example:  All birds are mammals. Parrot is a bird. Therefor e parrot is a mammal. This is a valid deductive argument. It is interesting to note that the conclusion is true.

 Strong Argument: An argument is strong if there is some way, some possibility for its premise to be true, and its conclusion to be false, but every such possibility is extremely unlikely. For example: Killing innocent human being is morally wrong. Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human. Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong. 

Discussion 1 week 4-10 The Tests for an Argument to Be Good

In chapter 3 of Epstein, according to the text, in order for any argument to be a good argument it must pass three tests. An argument that does not pass any of these tests will be considered as a bad argument.  Epstein describes that the first test is for the premise to be plausible. Basically an argument should have valid or good reason words, For the second test, the premise of the argument must be more plausible than the conclusion. The second argument must be more believeable. It could be false. Lastly, in the third test, the argument must be valid or strong. 
Example:  All whales are mammals. All mammals  are intelligent. So all whales are intelligent.
This is an example of an argument because two of the premise is true while the conclusion might be false. The two premise is common knowledge because everyone knows that whales are mammals.

Introducing Myself

My name is Manmeet kaur.I am currently majoring in Bio-chemistry. My expected graduation date is in 2013. I am also considering to major in health science. I am taking comm 41 to enhance my critical thinking, as well as communication skills. I am also taking this class to complete my GE A3 requirement.