Q2 P3

The next and final test the advertisement would need to prove is:

3. The source being quoted is named.

The source of all the testimonials, the percentages, and the facts stated on the website are all unnamed. It is only by default that leads you to believe that the all the information presented is coming straight from the website. The advertisement also flashes huge market names when it comes to finance such as, MSNBC, Market Watch, and Yahoo Finance. But, when evaluating what is presented and comparing it to the teachings of Epstein, you can see that the statement, “as mentioned on” is too ambiguous to consider a claim. What does the word, “mentioned” even mean? Is it good or bad?

There is no source for anything that the website says, the testimonials are posted on the website, but listed as the writer is a first name such as “Josh.” Who in the hell is Josh? There is no credentials offered, and no email to an official of the business. The only way of interacting with the website is by putting your email and other information so that you can go on their mailing lists (and who knows who that gets sent out to).

Although the advertisement tries very hard to persuade the one reading that it is a viable source of income, and it will change your life. The facts are…that we have no facts. The advertisement did not pass one of the three tests.

Q2 P2

The next of the three factors is:

2. The Outlet doesn't have a bias on the topic.

The definition of an Advertisement taken from Wikipedia: "Advertising is a form of communication used to persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners) to take some action with respect to products, ideas, or services."

In chapter 5, and throughout Epstein's book he preaches about relying first on personal experience rather than sources like the dictionary, or Wikipedia for that matter. So, when thinking about my personal experience, I know that, “there is no such thing as a free lunch,” meaning an advertisement is always trying to persuade you to do, or buy something. Looking at the website, “Awesome Penny Stocks,” I found that it is no different than any other advertisement in sense that it is selling a product or service, and using strategic approaches to do so. In fact, from my personal experience I’ve found that this is as typical as an advertisement comes. Very flashy, throwing ambiguous claims about the validity of the website and the services they are selling.

Overall, this advertisement does not pass the second test as well.

#2 a.

This is the advertisement I chose:

http://www.awesomepennystocks.com/yd/

The title of the website is, "Awesome Penny Stocks " and the advertisement off of yahoo was title: "Awesome Penny Stocks made me Rich!"

Right off the bat, as I evaluate the premises, I want to reject the claim.

As I read on, my impulse was only proven more. The site has many different pop-ups and other advertisements along with it. They say that they offer up-date information on stocks heading in the right direction and will send you "the most exclusive" newsletter "for FREE!"

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that exclusive things online do not come for free.

According to Epstein's Ch. 5 teachings, there are three factors that we need to evaluate.

1. The outlet has been reliable in the past

2. The outlet doesn't have a bais on the topic

3. The source being quoted is named

Well, I'll tackle all three throughout my posts, the first one being number 1.

1. The outlet has been reliable in the past.

Though I do not know from personal experience whether the outlet is reliable or not, i looked up the website and found the advertisement, and the website behind it, is in fact a scam.

If i needed further information I could perhaps ask around and see if I can find any other sources that prove different, but so far this advertisement has not proved the first test.

Week 4- P3- " So it's bad, So what?"

I really really enjoyed the last section of the chapter titled “So it’s bad, So what?” I sort of touched on this point in my previous post just going off the structural and content fallacies. What this section is saying, and what I want to elaborate on, is the fact that while argumentation and having the ability to point out these specific fallacies is a very beneficial skill that will do nothing but help you make the right decisions in your life, at the same time if you end up being that guy who cannot stop pointing out other peoples faults within their arguments, people will ultimately not want to talk to you; especially if you’re really good at it. The end of this section talks about how most people usually do not realize when they how steered away from their original premises, or their conclusion for that matter. When you confront someone and tell them that they do not have a strong or valid argument, what can they say back? The goal, as Epstein writes, is to educate. Do not point out the persons faults but maybe ask question to lead towards either figuring it out themselves or to a point where they ask you what you think. I have had major success with a person and completing goals and tasks after having a conversation where they essentially have an epiphany of why they were wrong in the way they went about an argument or something of that sort.

Now there are always the going to be those people who just do not want to listen, or step outside the box. The section also talks about them. When a person’s argument is misleading, manipulative, and one sided, he or she has violated the principle of Rational Discussion and unfortunately either needs to learn the hard way, or drop it. I feel sorry for people who do not have empathy.

Content Fallacies

Content Fallacies

I really enjoyed this fallacy and its focus on precise premises. Even if ones argument can be valid and/or strong, if the premises is not precise, then other factors of the argument can be factored in. When other factors come into play, the argument can be construed to have a different objective then the person who formulated it had in mind.

Epstien's claim about some of the different words that right away can tell you the argument is not valid (Almost, in this group, probably) is one that I had definitely not considered in my speech. When I try and formulate arguments with my peers about something that they did, or something that I believe to be true within my organization, I usually dip into such words only because I do not want to sound like I am always right and there is no possible way that there can be any other way than MY way.

I feel like when you argue with a person about something they have done negative towards yourself, or something you represent, it's better to let them gain some sort of satisfaction in the argument first so that they feel like they have said their point and it has been recognized. Once this is done, make your argument towards that person and usually they will be more understanding of their fault, and if not, they'll at least be receptive to what you're saying. The reason is because you have given them the air and the ear before you impressed on them what you think they did.

I have used this tactic numerous times throughout my life and have had great success. In addition, the great thing about this tactic is that it also strengthens the relationship of the two people arguing while not violating the principles of rational discussion.

Structural Fallacies

I found most interest in the Different Fallacies in Chapter 11 of the Epstien text. I have stumbled upon Fallacies numerous times in my other classes and in conversation with my peers.

In this blog I will focus on Structural Fallacies. I found them very interesting because content, which i thought would normally be most vital, is not incorporated. It makes me think of the way approach arguments within my fraternity. On a daily bases I need to approach brothers and tell them something that they need to do, or have not been doing. It's always a hard situation that I often find myself reflecting after about; different ways i could have approached the situation. If I were to focus not so much on what I was going to tell them, but how i was going to tell them, I could potentially get my point across with less controversy. The indirect way of reasoning ( if A, then B. Not B. Therefore, not A.) is practiced seldom in my organization and as the Epstien text elucidates, it is a strong argument. The corresponding Fallacy type is more frequently used. Usually a fact is presented, and what is suppose to happen because that fact is said. Then we tell the person in question that the fact was not upheld and that is why the result has not happened. (If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B). I realize that this only confuses the situation because instead of pointing out whats wrong first, we state how it should be. When you state how it should be first and what went wrong second the person in question will leave with the thought of what he did wrong and not what he could do to fix it.

Question 2 9/9/11

Valid Arguments are arguments that cannot by any means have a premises that is true with a conclusion that is not true at the same time. If the two do not match up, the argument is not valid. That is the pure definition of Validity in logic.

Example: All Dell Laptops are blue. Kevin owns a Dell Laptop. Kevin's Laptop is blue.

-The argument is valid because there is no way that it can be said that ALL dell laptops are blue without Kevin's dell laptop also being blue.

Strong and Weak Arguments are not to be confused with Valid Arguments. If it is a strong argument, the truthful premises could still possibly lead to a false conclusion, however, it is very very very unlikely. The argument would be deemed not quite valid, but strong.

Example: The doors automatically lock when the bell rings. The bell rings at 9:00am. The doors lock at 9:00am.

This is a strong argument because although there is a possibility that the doors may experience technical difficulty (making it not valid), but nine times out of ten this argument will hold true, making it a strong one.

Weak Arguments are those that have a truthful premises but the likelihood of the conclusion also being true at the same time is very unlikely. When the conclusion of a premises is easily proven wrong, usually with common sense but in any event the evidence to prove false can be found very easily.

Discussion Question 1 9/8/11

Concerning part C of the Epstein Text.

Example: 32 Gig Iphones have a lot of memory. My Iphone has a lot of memory. My Iphone is a 32 Gig.

Test 1.

"The premises are plausible"

The premise is not plausible because "a lot" can be a very subjective term. There can be someone who is really into music that thinks 32 Gigs is nothing. On the other hand, there can be someone who thinks 16 Gigs is more than enough.

Test 2

"The premises are more plausible than the conclusion"

The premise in this example is not as plausible as the conclusion because there is too much subjectivity in the original claim. The conclusion it more plausible becasue it states the fact that could be true are untrue. Black and White. "a lot" is a grey area.

Test 3

"The argument is valid or strong"

My argument is not very strong because i repeat the subjective claim, "A lot". It would be better if I put something more black and white so that it strengthens and validates my argument. Because of the level of ambiguity in my argument, it does not pass three either.

-