Discussion Week 16-22

From the first major course assignment that I've done, it taught me a lot even though it was an online class assignment. First, it taught me how to work in a group environment through emails and chatting. I learned that online assignments can just be as effective as a in person assignment. Even though my group mates and I all have different schedule, I learned how to work around people's schedule and even sacrificing my hanging out time to adjust to my group mate's schedule. Second, it taught me that chatroom is just as useful as meeting in person. I find that chatroom helps a lot more because we can copy and paste websites to each other and share ideas and we get to discuss everything faster. Third, I learned that through the major assignments, it taught me to look over what I learned in the past and reapply it to make my arguments stronger. I find that the first and second major course assignment has taught me a lot in real life how to make arguments valid and strong.

Discussion Week 16-22

 In the chapter 8, Epstein talks about how to check whether certain kinds of arguments that use general claims are valid?  We can check the validity with diagrams which includes:

1)       A collection that is represented by an enclosed area.

2)      If one area is entirely with one another, then everything in one collection is also in other.

3)      If two areas overlap another, then there is something that is common to both selections.

4)      If two areas do not overlap, then there is nothing common to both collections.

5)      An “a” or a do n area marks that a particular object is in that collection

6)      Then we draw the areas to show the premises as true while trying to represent the conclusion is false. If we are able to represent the premises as true and conclusion is false then the argument is invalid. If there is no way to show the premises is true and conclusion is false then the argument is valid.

Discussion Week 16-22

In chapter 8 there is a section where Epstein mentions that general claims and their contradictions. In dealing with general claims, they deal with phrases with all and phrases with some. The word “all” means every single one, making no exceptions to anyone. Depending on the argument, there are many phrases to use when using  the word all; it can be either used as “ Every single one “ or “There are at least one” A personal example would include a situation that I was at Great America couple weeks ago, There was this group of youth with their teachers. They wanted to be separate din to two groups to have fun. But they had to be around with the kids with no exceptions.  It was there duty to be taking care of the children with any exception. It is basically A or P.

Discuusion week 2-8 Post 3

The slippery slope argument is clearly invalid if it is meant to be a point of logic, for it does not follow that "if b is an exception to A, then no part of A is true."  Specific exceptions to a rule or principle do not in any way logically imply that the rule is otherwise false or never justifiably applicable in any cases.  In fact, calling something an "exception" points out that only it is the relevant act that the rule does not cover.  If, for example, a pharmaceutical drug should be used only by people who have asthma, that does not imply people should also take it for arthritis or pregnancy.  Permitting stem cell research on embryos does not logically imply that sacrificing infants or terminally ill patients is acceptable. It appears the argument is meant to be more an argument about people's psychology, and, spelled out, it seems to be something more like "if you make any exceptions to a rule, particularly a cherished or time-honored rule, people will think the rule arbitrary to begin with and will see no reason to follow it at all."  Hence, any exceptions undermine respect for a rule, and thus eventually lead to the rule's not being followed at all.  Or another intended argument might be "people cannot generally make fine distinctions, so if you make an exception to a (time-honored) rule, people will think you have shown the rule to be flawed and therefore unnecessary to follow."

discussion week 2-8 post 2

From chapter 7 by Epstein, I have learned that you should include the other side when arguing for a controversial claim: Argument, counterargument, counter-counterargument. One of the contexts, I learned about counter argument is raising objections: is way to show that an argument is bad. In order to do that we are supposed to be making another argument that is either calls in to a question one of the premises, or shows that an unstated premises is dubious, as well illustrating if the argument is weak. Secondly, I learned about the ways of directly and indirectly refuting an argument. In order to refute an argument directly, we need to show that at least one of the premises is dubious. It is important to show that the argument is not valid or strong. Lastly, we need to show the conclusion is false. On the other hand in order to refute an argument indirectly,In order to however, would be to somehow show that there is no agreement upon the argument without straight up saying it. From the example above, one way to do this would sound a little like, "Jack just has a hard time adjusting his views and seeing two sides to the story. He usually likes to stick to what he knows; therefore usually believing that his way is the right way." From that, the person is not directly saying anything against the first claim. This is more of like a lighter version of opposing the claim, somewhat giving an explanation to hinder any negative thoughts about Jack being a stubborn person

 

 

Discuusion week 2-8 Post 1

In the chapter 6 by Epstein I have learned about filling in unstated premises, indicator words, what counts as a plausible premise, and reasoning with compound claims. Often we determine that an argument is valid or weak by looking at the role of a compound claim: which is linking of two or more claims together to make a new. It has to be viewed as one claim. Its truth value is depends on the truth values of the claims that are part of it.  Another thing I learned from this chapter is False dilemmas: is a bad use of excluding possibilities where the “or” claim is a false or implausible. Sometimes just the dubious “or” claim itself is called a false dilemma. A false dilemma arises when we allow ourselves to be convinced that we have to choose between two and only two mutually exclusive options, when that is untrue. Generally, when this rhetorical strategy is used, one of the options is unacceptable and repulsive

Discuusion week 25-1 Answer2

Advertising surrounds us in our everyday lives, and advertisers use countless means to catch the customer's eye, including sexuality, celebrity appeal, fantasy, comedy, and creativity. I found an advertisement on Dove soap. It became a controversial issue. Dove soap advertisement shows three women standing in front of a wall split into "before" and "after" panes. The issue: The women become gradually lighter in skin from left to right. Advertisements are marketed to attract consumers to materialistic goods; they create an infatuation for perfection and for beauty. This infatuation may sound harmless, but it puts young adults on a path for desperate desire for acceptance and normality. When young adults find themselves on this path, they cannot judge what normality is, and define it as perfection. So basically we get trapped in to the materialistic world, start believing in the advertisement.