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.