Further Discussion: Refuting an Argument

One section that I don't think we covered enough was in Chapter 7 of the Epstein text, discussing refuting an argument. Basically, refuting an argument is when one hears an argument and makes a counter argument, indicating that the original argument is not strong or valid. There are two ways to present a counter-argument: directly and indirectly. In order to directly refute an argument, it needs to be shown that one of the premises is uncertain, that the argument is not valid or strong, or that the conclusion is false (Epstein, 149). Refuting an argument indirectly is a bit more challenging, as finding the imperfections in the original argument is more difficult. In this instance, if one knows that something is wrong with one of the premises, they need to refute indirectly. I found this section important to what we've learned over the semester. While we learn to make stronger arguments, we also need to learn how to correctly indicate when an argument is not at its strongest, therefore making our understanding and recognition of good arguments and bad arguments alot stronger.

What I've Learned...

Over the course of the semester, I've learned quite a bit about arguments. That's the one word I will always link to this class, "arguments." Something I hate doing. I don't like to argue. Yet, it doesn't hurt to learn how to do it right.

I've learned how to recognize how an argument is formed, and what good arguments are based off of. I've learned what not to say in an argument, things that make your position seem weak or inaccurate. I've learned the sneaky tactics that advertisers use to gain attention towards their products. I've learned how to better communicate and work with a group, even when the only communication is via the internet.

So what has this class taught me? It's taught me how to structure arguments in a better way, as well as give me plenty of tools to prove points that I'm sure will come in handy in school or somewhere else down the road.

Generalizing

We briefly covered generalizations in chapter 8, where we talked about general claims. Chapter 14 goes deeper into generalizations. Epstein sees generalizations as when a sample is used to describe a total population. In other words, generalizations are when one unique situation is categorized and recognized as similar to other situations. This can work, yet, for the most part, generalizations are not affective in making strong arguments.

Making generalizations is very frequent in our everyday lives. It makes sense to voice our opinions on matters by categorizing them all together. Generalizing can make one thing seem worse, or better, than it actually is. For example, I hear, and use, generalizations about school all the time. That in itself is a generalization. I don't literally hear generalizations about school every hour or minute of the day, but I do hear them quite frequently. These types of generalizations are bad, as they include bias towards structuring the argument. Some people aren't big fans of school, and they exaggerate their opinions by generalizing the repercussions of school related problems. Generalizations like this make weak arguments.

Criteria for Cause and Effect

In every chapter we go over, the sections that include the boxes help me out the most. These are the boxes that highlight the basics of what the chapter is about. In section 8 of chapter 15, the criteria for cause and effect section sums up the chapter for me. In this section, you can figure out how to recognize if an argument can be categorized as a legitimate cause and effect argument. Basically, these are the rules that a cause and effect argument have to follow. By looking at this section, I find it easier to identify examples of cause and effect.

The section is designed to sum up the chapter and everything we've learned about, however I find it as the most important section in the chapter. Many of the exercises deal with recognizing arguments, so understanding what a cause and effect argument looks like and is made up of, so sections like this one, in my opinion, make completing these exercises simple and easy to learn.

Mission Critical

This website was much more helpful, in my opinion, compared to the last website we looked at. In this website, the break down of each concept relating to arguments helps me look and clearly understand each part. Having each part separated and individually defined made it easier to refresh on what we've learned so far. Having the parts broken up is also helpful so that I can look at sections that I need more clarification on, and skip, or briefly look at, sections I understand.

In addition to the division of concepts, the ven diagrams help put examples as visuals, making understanding the topic easier. The numerous exercises make the website well rounded. The page we looked at in the first question is included in the sections, as well as other pages that include long, confusing definitions. Still, seeing all these concepts that we have learned about broken up and separated, it somehow makes it easier for me to understand recognize each concept. The organization of the page is what was most helpful to me on this page.

Cause and Effect

I probably have a unique response to this website.

While reading this website about "casual arguments," I continuously looked back to the situation, where a bicycle swerves into traffic to avoid a truck, forcing a car to brake, which then got hit from behind. Even though the topic seems fairly easy to understand, this website was useful in showing me how complex and mind-boggling arguments can be devised.

The exercises saved the day for me, so they are the most useful part about this site. I was able to understand that comparing the situation argued about to other situations where an incident does not occur is part of making a strong casual argument. I recognize that the cause described in the argument has to be reasonable for the argument to be strong. I can also tell that there has to be just one significant difference or similarity from other situations for the argument to be strong. However, reading through the whole page made the information much more complex and harder to understand. Maybe it's just me, but the most useful part of this website was the very last section of the website, as well as the exercises. The rest was useful for giving me a headache.

I also find it quite interesting that while reading the page and the original example, and debating the argument over who the accident was caused by, I clearly recognized right off the bat that legally, the second driver is at fault for the accident. Drivers who do not leave enough distance between themselves and the car in front of them are at fault. Somehow I still remember that from driver's ed.

My Opinion on Using Appeal to Emotion

Throughout this chapter, we've seen that using appeal to emotion in an argument can help get someone to agree to your argument. This can make it easier to get people to agree to your argument. With all the examples for appeal to emotion we've seen, it's incredibly interesting that all appeals to emotion are used frequently in advertisements.

Companies like to advertise using an appeal to emotion in their arguments. For example, the book includes an appeal to vanity for Pantene Pro-V. I also used another example in one of my recent posts, where I talked about using a styling gel to liven up my hair, and apparently to help me socialize as well. You can also point out that the "wearing a seatbelt" ad appeals to fear, by saying that every time you don't wear a seatbelt, you, or someone in the car with you, will die.

Like I stated in my last post, using axe styling gel did not get girls to play with my hair, even though the ad said it would. And even though wearing a seatbelt does lead to death, it doesn't mean that it will happen all the time, like it points out in the seatbelt ad. Suggesting that wearing a seatbelt can lead to death is a good argument, yet, it does not make it valid. The same can be said for something like the axe commercial.

This chapter told us that arguments using an appeal to emotion are good, which they are. However, these advertisements are very rarely valid because of it.