Response to Mission Critical Website

The Mission Critical Website is a gold mine. It is highly organized so you can freshen up on any term very quickly. All the information on the website is reliable and easy to understand. I like how it is organized chronologically from “the basics” to “analysis”, then “Fallacies.” When I looked under the Casual Arguments heading I found it took me to the link that was up on the professors blog before. I guess the links that I had been following are all Mission Critical but I was just jumping to the particular topic that we were going over for the week. This is the first I’ve seen the Main Menu for Mission Critical. I plan to use this for most of my studying when it comes final time. I have a low B in the class now and would really like to do well on the last assignments and discussions and hopefully the Final as well. I actually am disappointed in myself and the lack of attention I paid to weekly discussions and want to make up for it in these last couple of weeks.

Exercises for CA

I thought the exercises for Casual Arguments was one of the better exercises I’ve run through. The reason I found it so insightful was because of the scenarios presented at their clear application to Casual argumentation. For example, one of the questions asked was, “Five people became sick at the company picnic. Which of the following might be considered the most significant “commonality” in their illnesses?” The choices were vague but the correct answer was determinable. The answer is “they all ate the potato salad.” Why I enjoyed so much is because it elucidated Casual arguments in complex scenarios as well as simple. The exercises worked their way up in complexity until they really had me going over what a casual argument really is. What I took from the string of questions about the company picnic was a way of going through a checklist in my head and determining if there is only one difference, therefore making it a casual argument, or, if it does not all add up and is really a fallacy.

Criteria and Example Reasoning

In this last post I will briefly elucidate Criteria and Example Reasoning with an attempt to clarify some points for my fellow students. An example of criteria reasoning is when there is information presented about a certain topic and a subject gathers the information and draws a conclusion from it. This is most commonly found in written arguments. When we draw conclusions on paper usually we use more concrete fact and try and stay as objective as we can. Because of this, when we write we tend to use criteria based writing rather than draw from personal experience. In contrast, Example Reasoning, in my opinion, is used more during conversation. People constantly draw on past experiences and other past experiences, whether it is from a day ago or a year ago, it is much easier to draw on such examples from your memory bank then read up on a recent study on a conclusion that your trying to prove.

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning

In this next post I want to discuss Inductive and Deductive Reasoning. These are terms I have heard throughout my academic lifetime but never really mastered. Basically, Deductive reasoning is the intuitive reasoning that one would deduce logically. For example: Trees are used for wood. This table is made with wood. This table is made from tree. Why this example is deductive is because of the logical progression of premises to a conclusion. The is the most general type of reasoning and also incorporates different types of reasoning such as casual as well. Its complement, Inductive reasoning, is similar but different in a few important ways. First, we can take a look at an example of Inductive Reasoning. Inductive Reasoning would look like this: Well, every other day that I have attended class the teacher has been late…so, I can assume that today will be no different. The teacher will be late. Why this is Inductive Reasoning is because of the steps taken to reach the conclusion. The subject assumes that future events will be held true solely based on past events. Now, this form of reasoning, as you can imagine, can get you into some trouble. Just because it happened in the past does not mean that it will happen in the future. If I were to choose between the two forms of Reasoning I would choose Deductive. It’s a safer bet.

Casual Reasoning

In this post I am going to discuss causal reasoning. Casual Reasoning, I believe, is a very common trait among college students. In my own words, it is a belief in yourself to deduce things about a situation based only on your information. It is a very natural intuitive reasoning process that is utilized on a daily basis. The application of casual reasoning allows one to be both subjective and objective of a situation and make sense of it. It is a keen skill that if developed will help you in many ways and avoid many consequences that are unwanted. For example, have you ever been pulled over by police and had to attempt to talk your way out of the situation? First of all, it sucks. Secondly, almost every person who has been pulled over has try and talked their way out of the ticket. When I try, Casual Reasoning definitely plays a roll. I try and act a certain way while deducing what the problem is and using my reasoning skills to try and get out of the situation. Why is it qualified as casual? Well, have ou ever tried arguing with a cop? It never works out. So almost always I try and be as non-confrontational as possible while elucidating my feelings and my stand on the situation.

Appeal to Spite

Next Fallacy I thought would be worth noting is the Appeal to Spite. When someone uses this fallacy they usually draw upon existing feelings to engender a often brash response. An example of this would be: "Common guys! You're going to let all the spoiled rich kids make all the decisions?"

Why this is a good example is because of the outlandish stereotype it projects on a certain group. The tell that lets you know that it is a fallacy is the "all the spoiled rich kids" segment. Why? Because every person is different and most of the time when someone speaks about a group of people with negative identifiers they are not going to hold true for everyone in the group therefore making it a fallacy.

Personally, I think this fallacy is useful when getting people on board with your initiatives. Although it would normally be perceived as a bad thing that most likely has negative intentions, it still can be used for a good thing. For example: "We can't let all the lazy people keep us from achieving our goals!"

This is spiteful towards lazy people, which is adequately vague, as well as motivating to anyone who wants to be productive.

Appeal to Pity

Chapter 10 of Epstien was exactly how Professor Perez put it, Short and Sweet. It was to the point and brought the different Appeals of Emotion to full light. The first was Appeal was to Pity. This Appeal, I think, is a excellent one that usually works with a empathetic person. Basically, it’s when someone tries to get you on their side of a claim by making use of one’s feelings. An example would be: “I think the grading is too harsh. I have work five days a week and I try my hardest to please my girlfriend, which usually means hanging out with her at least three times a week. I volunteer actively in my community and I am involved with many of the organizations on the SJSU campus.”

The reason this is an Appeal to Pity is because the claim that is trying to be proven does not have to do with any of the support behind the claim. In the example, it is clear that the speaker is trying to make the listener feel bad because of the amount of things he has on his plate, but what he hopefully realizes it that this guys schedule has nothing to do with his grading procedures.

It is an appeal to pity.