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.

Appeal to Fear in Advertising

For this post, I am responding to exercise 3, where it asks to discuss an advertisement that uses an appeal to fear.

A very interesting advertisement that I found that strongly depicts an appeal to fear is a Australian seatbelt campaign, designating to wear a seatbelt in order to avoid serious harmful consequences. I will try to not go into detail, as the ad is very graphic.

In the ad, a young man, who is not wearing his seatbelt, is sitting behind the driver, who is wearing a seatbelt. The driver looks away for a brief moment, and suddenly collides with the car in front of her. Due to the force of impact, the young man is launched forward, and violently collides with the driver in front of him. If you would like to see the video, I'll add the link to the video at the bottom.

In this ad, I believe that a good argument is made, as the ad depicts a real life situation one might go through. What makes this crucial to the ad's message is when we remember one of the audience's main ways to interpret a message: personal knowledge and/or experience. I remember I had that "Every 15 minutes" assembly in High School, where car accidents, especially ones caused by drunken driving and/or not wearing seatbelts. Maybe you've seen the same one. By showing a possible scenario about a type of accident that occurs frequently, the advertisement is successful in clearly stating the argument that not wearing a seatbelt can have fatal consequences.

Video (some graphic content): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRo-2THXaOQ

Appeals to Emotion

When making an argument, or any statement for that matter, it is not uncommon for emotions to enter the picture. It is important to share your emotions with others, however it is also important to not expect everyone to have the same response to an issue. Sometimes, when arguments are made, emotions can drive our opinions one way or another. This is called appealing to emotion. A good example of those who appeal to emotion are protestors or advocates for certain projects or policies. They have certain agendas and beliefs, and hold up signs, hand out flyers, and/or get signatures in order to get their message out to people. However, based on their personal emotions, they argue something should be done, therefore appealing to emotion.

There are several types of appeals in arguments that relate to emotions: appeal to pity, appeal to fear, appeal to spite, and appeal to vanity. Appeal to pity is present when one argues on behalf of the less fortunate, advocating to help those in need. Appeal to fear is present when someone argues a point by making the viewer fearful of a problem. Appeal to spite is present when one argues opposite to another based on previous attitudes towards the other person. Appeal to vanity is present when one argues something to make you feel better about your appearance. This one is the one that "strikes" me best, because it is seen everywhere, especially in advertisements. For example, the recent AXE Style Gel commercials suggest that if guys use it, chicks will go ga-ga over their hair. Personally, I use that style gel, and I have yet to have some model run her fingers through my hair.

Diagram In My Book

While reading the section about contradictories in my book, I came across a diagram written by someone who had previously owned the textbook. The diagram was of a square, and on each corner, were the words: "all," "some," "no," and "some not," with lines connecting all of them together. At first, I knew it had to do with the concepts in the chapter, but I wasn't exactly sure how to relate it. Obviously, the past reader was pointing out the relationship between these words which indicate generalities in arguments, as each of the four words are commonly used in generalizing.

After seeing the diagram, I glanced back to where it is used in the text, on page 162. These words are all portrayed in claims, as well as in contradictories. These are used to show how generalities can be shown with different words, switching, for example, all, for not every, in an argument.

Going back to the diagram, I can see that the previous owner of my textbook was indicating how all four of the words stated earlier are interchangeable, and can be put in as both claims and contradictories alike. either that, or they drew a random square with an X through it out of boredom.

Between One And All

In this section, the book recognizes the difference between two types of generalities: precise generalities and vague generalities. Both are used in arguments to identify a population, yet one is more accurate than the other. Precise generalities are more likely to be valid than vague generalities, as numbers or percentages can be given in an argument to strengthen the premises. This presence of numbers makes the argument connected to an actual number, unlike vague generalities, which do not specify an amount. An example of a precise argument could be "84% of students who take online courses like the online courses. Wally is taking an online course. Therefore, Wally likes taking the online class."

Vague generalities include methods I wrote about in my last post. Words like "all," "most,""some," and "few" are used to portray an argument, however they are vague in identifying exactly what the argument is saying. Since these words are not connected to actual amounts, it is harder for an argument with vague generalities to be valid. For example, "most people who take online classes like them better than regular classes." Since there is no number connected to it, the argument is vague, and less likely to be fully accurate.

General Claims

From reading the first section of chapter 8, I can see that it focuses on making sure one does not generalize, or categorize everything in one way. For example, that statement I just made was a generalization. I was not suggesting categorizing every single thing when I wrote "everything," I was stating that everything in relation to the topic. Generalizing like this is confusing in conversation and argument making, and also makes your point less valid. When making a claim, you should be sure that you are phrasing it in a way that shows any exceptions, therefore not generalizing. Words such as "all" and "every" are strong indicators of generalization. These words work, if someone were to make a claim such as: "All blogs in this class are online." Yes, this is a generalization, yet a correct one. Still, for the most part, the use of these words make claims less valid.

Relevance

In chapter 4, one of the important elements that is discussed is relevance, meaning the relationship of an argument to the subject. The book in the examples gives a good example, where a responder redirects an argument to give his argument meaning, even though he is arguing about something unrelated to the subject. This is important when giving an argument, to make sure the argument you give is relevant.

This is easy to do, as long as one focuses on the topic, and makes sure they don't accidentally take it in another direction. A good example I can me up with is if Jon were to say: "That lady shouldn't wear a fur coat because it is warm out today.", with Judy responding: "What are yo talking about? Fur coats involve the mistreatment of animals." This is not only confusing, but irrelevant to the original argument. It is crucial to the speaker to make sure their argument ties in with the topic and original argument, in order for the responding argument to be relevant.

Advertising on the Internet

This advertisement, which I found on Yahoo's main page, indicates that by investing in this advertisement and buying the product, you can be as fit as this guy by summer. The argument here is that if you buy this product, you will be able to gain muscle before summer, and that you could end up looking like this guy. Everyone has their own reflections on advertisements, but let's take a look at how one can analyze this using the information found in sections A & B of chapter 5 of the Epstein text.

When evaluating the argument, we can either accept the argument, reject it, or waiting to give judgement until more info is brought forth. First, one can use personal experience in responding to the ad. This is the most substantial source for response, as people tend to trust their own values and beliefs over anything else. If one were to have previously used legal performance enhancers, like the ones offered in the ad, and had different results, they could reject the claim in the ad. On the other side, one could have had similar results to the guy in the ad, and could accept the claim. In most cases, ads portray an unreachable, exaggerated result, which most do not achieve. Some other sources for responses depends on the person making the claim. Since this is an ad, we don't know who is making the claim, and therefore, it is much less likely that one will accept the advertisement's claim.

Repairing Arguments

We learned from previous discussions and readings that it is impossible to fix an argument. In this chapter, we learn to structure our arguments in a way that strengthen them. This is called repairing arguments, which is generally achieved by inserting premises or a conclusion.

First off, we need to remember the principles of rational discussion. They focus on statements that are so poorly structured or worded, that they alter the argument. Some may not even be arguments due to a blatant violation of rationality. Some arguments can end up like this if not repaired correctly.

Now we take a look at how to repair an argument. Adding a premise or conclusion helps out, as long as it follows all of three important tests. First, the argument must become stronger or valid from the addition of premises or conclusions. Secondly, the premise has to be plausible, and can be interpreted as plausible by the listener. Third, the premise has to be more plausible than the conclusion. If an argument is weak or defective, it must be repaired following these guidelines, to make it legitimate.

Here's an example. "It's raining outside. Therefore, I will get drenched walking to class." The obvious claim to add here is "I don't have an umbrella," because I actually don't have one. This makes my argument much stronger than it would be if I were to only say the original example.

Content Fallacies

In the text, Epstein discusses fallacies in arguments, which are arguments that are bad and can not be fixed. An argument can typically be made a fallacy by how the argument is phrased, or more importantly, by what the context of the argument is. This type of fallacy is called a content fallacy. Content fallacies have premises that are either doubtful or unrelated to the conclusion, or both. In short, a content fallacy is an argument that makes no sense based on the logic portrayed by the speaker.

For example, I could say that "Online classes require too much from students, therefore this class will require us to post at least 12 hours apart." This is an example of confusing subjective and objective claims. Usually in a strong argument, one will pose an objective claim before a subjective claim, because we have learned that for an argument to be good, the premises have to be more plausible than the conclusion. In my example, I pose a subjective claim first, which is dependent on one's beliefs, making it less plausible than the conclusion, which is an objective claim, something that is not dependent on one's beliefs. This makes my statement a contextual fallacy. If I wanted a strong argument, I would have switched the two claims around and re-structured them to avoid creating a fallacy.

Argument Structure Example #2

The original statement is as follows:

"I'm on my way to school. I left five minutes late. 1 Traffic is heavy. 2 Therefore, I'll be late for class. 3 So I might as well stop and get breakfast. 4" (Epstein, 225).

First, It can be recognized that this is an argument. I have labeled each part that can be considered as a claim. The conclusion is "I might as well stop and get breakfast." Additional premises are that if someone leaves later than usual for class, then they will automatically be late. As for subarguments, 1 and 2 are independent and support, and 3 supports the conclusion. As for the strength of the argument, I see it as a good argument, however it is an assumption that the person will be late. Even though there is traffic, that doesn't necessarily mean that the speaker will be late. The claim is not that good.

I think this exercise was helpful in analyzing statements step by step to further understand exactly how strong they are.

Good Reason to Believe

Chapter 3 in the Epstein text is thorough in its' descriptions and examples of what a good argument is, almost too thorough. Through reading the chapter, I felt that there were so many sections and definitions of what makes a good, valid, or strong argument, and that some of them didn't match up. The section that helped me understand exactly what a good argument is was the first section, titled: "Good Reason to Believe," where the true definition of a good argument was presented clear and simple. The section states that: "a good argument is one in which the premises give good reason to believe the conclusion is true" (Epstein, 37). I found this definition incredibly helpful, and I came back to it time and time again while working on creating my own examples.

Basically, the definition given in this section by Epstein incorporates many of the sections in the chapter into one statement. The "good reason' portion of the definition refers to the section "The Conclusion Follows From the Premises," pointing out that there needs to be a strong relation between the premises and conclusion. It also points out the differences between a strong and a weak argument.

I really found this section helpful. Hopefully you all will too.

Strong Versus Valid Arguments

We already know that if an argument has premises and a conclusion that are true, then the argument is valid, and therefore very good. Every valid argument is good. The term "strong" comes into play when the conclusion can be false, therefore making the argument invalid. It depends on technically how false the conclusion is. If the conclusion is nowhere possible, then the argument is invalid and poor. If the conclusion is any bit possible, then it is strong. In short, an argument does not have to be valid to be strong. It has to be strong to be valid.

Here's an example of an argument that is strong, yet not valid. "The sun is out, so it can't be nighttime." It is a strong argument. The sun typically shows itself during the daytime, but this argument is not valid. Closer to the poles (of the earth), sometimes they will get 24 hours of sunlight, and therefore the sun will be out at nighttime. Since the conclusion is possibly false, the argument is not valid. However, in most cases, this statement will be true, making the argument strong.

Testing a Good Argument

When someone makes an argument, it is important to decide whether it is valid or not. Some people will make very reasonable arguments, as long as they meet a set of rules that all good arguments adhere to. According to Epstein, a good argument must have premises that are plausible and "more plausible than the conclusion" (Epstein, 42). The argument also has to be strong in order for it to be good.

First, I think it's important to recognize what exactly the "premises" and "conclusion" represent. Keep in mid that the premises is usually one or two statements that are true, or considered true, which one then uses as their reasons for their conclusion to be valid. If the statement(s) aren't true, then they are not plausible, and the argument will be weak. The conclusion is a statement that one believes is plausible, based on the premises. The stronger the conclusion, the more likely the argument will be good.

Let's go back to the tests. The first test is that "The premises are plausible" (Epstein, 42). This means that the first statement must be possible for your argument to be legitimate. The second test is if "The premises are more plausible than the conclusion" (Epstein, 42). Any argument is based on this, since one makes an argument to show why they believe their conclusion is possible. You can't prove something is possible using something that is less possible. The third test is if "The argument is valid or strong" (Epstein, 42). An argument can be possible, yet weak, if the premises are weak and do not give enough information.

An example for an argument is: "Bobby is sick. Bobby can't go to school. So Bobby can't finish his homework."

Going through each test, we can see that the premises are true and plausible, as well as more plausible than the conclusion. Bobby would think that this is a good argument, believing that his sickness gets him out of schoolwork. Not so fast, Bobby! His argument is good, however, not the best one. It is possible for Bobby to get schoolwork done, even though he is sick. It depends on how sick he is, and what is demanded of him in his work. The premises is true, but the conclusion can be false, but still possible. This argument is therefore good, yet not valid.

Definitions

One segment of the text by Epstein that really caught my eye was the segment discussing definitions. We know that a definition refers to a deeper awareness of what a person, place, or thing really is. After reading from the text, we can see that a definition also is the term for an analysis of what we mean when we give a statement that is vague or possible to be misinterpreted. Definitions, in this sense, also make it possible for others to get exactly what we mean.

In my personal opinion, I think that defining exactly what we mean, like the examples given in the book, is going too far. I see it as over-analyzing what we say. If everyone were to clearly define every statement they want to make, our dialect would be completely void of originality and flair. For example, in one passage from the text, a woman implies that another person is rich because: "She's got a Mercedes" (Epstein, 28). Of course, I agree that this is not a definition of "rich," however, it's a funny and original joke , and gives a color to the person who made the comment. A true definition of "rich" would be more accurate in the situation, but honestly, it would also be completely boring and uninteresting.

Vague Sentences

Vague sentences are sentences that are usually misinterpreted becuase the wording is misleading. This makes it difficult for the audience to make sense or believe the statement. Advertisments are a good example of this. The companies they advertise are trying to make a profit off of people, by leading them on and influencing them to spend money on their product. Their choice of wording can make it seem like their product will be helpful, while not promising anything that the buyer might have inferred.

Recently I’ve been seeing many commercials on TV for a company that is attracting inventors to invest in their service. They say that it is easy for inventors to get inventions pattened and submitted to companies, making it seem like it is easy for any invention to become a reality and profitable. However, in the fine print, it is mentioned that it is easy to get inventions pattened...if the inventions meet a set of guidelines to qualify, and that most inventions do not get a pattent. The original statement is vague because the whole story is not provided, and the consumer is led on.

Suggestive + Objective Claims

When someone makes a statement that can be determined as true or false, they are making a claim. Any claim can be seen as correct or incorrect, however its' classification depends on the context of the statement. The context of the statement justifies whether it is either subjective or objective.

A subjective claim is a statement that is true in some people's opinion, and false in others based on their bias toward the subject or situation. Recently I was playing basketball in the gym on campus, where somebody on my team mentioned that someone on the opposite team was annoying. The player on the other team may or may not have been annoying. My teammate obviously was biased towards the situation, since the player was on the other team. The statement is therefore subjective.

An objective claim is a statement which, like a subjective claim, can be true or false. However, Objective claims have no room for bias. It is not dependent on the audience. Let's go back to the gym, where it was stated that one player was 6'7" tall. The player might have been 6'7" tall, and might have not. The answer is not affected by personal bias, and therefore, is an objective claim.

Introduction

Hello everyone! My name, or alias, is "Vesuviust," a slight variation of Mount Vesuvius in Italy. I am currently a Sophomore at SJSU, and I have already taken a few communication courses, so I do have somewhat of a "communication experience." I also communicate with other people on a daily basis, so that counts. In this particular class, I hope to be able to become a better problem solver, as well as being able to communicate with associates about decisions that need to be made.

I took an online course last semester, so I have some experience with taking courses online. This one seems a bit more in-depth than the other one, however having a class where I can sort of make my own schedule makes my weekly plan easier.

As for who I am, I mentioned that I am a sophomore here at SJSU, as a RTVF major (Radio/Television/Film). I enjoy blogging, and I have another blog, which I try update whenever I can. I'm a big fan of Spartan athletics, so you'll probably see me at a football or a basketball game cheering on our teams. I'm also involved in comedy, both stand-up and improv, which is alot of fun. That's pretty much it. I look forward to connecting with you all, and maybe learn something in the process.

-Vesuviust