Question 3

One concept I would say needed further discussion would be the difference between Euphemisms and Up-players. I don’t really understand if there is a difference. When I looked at the two different definitions, Euphemism sounded pretty vague; “A Euphemism is a word or phrase that makes something sound better than a neutral description.” When it says “something” that could be referring to a claim, a statement, or really any words put together. The exact definition of an up-player provided on the blog is, “An up-player exaggerates the significance of a claim.” I believe both of these definitions are too vague to distinguish between each other. I also think that if you were to qualify something as an up-player or euphemism it would all be subjective to you and your experiences. I researched these terms and I did not find anywhere where it said that these terms can be qualified by each individual and if there were to be a strict guideline that would cross the board would be not even possible because it is subject to the interpreters decision.

Question 2

2). What was your favorite thing about the class? What was your least favorite thing about the class? How can this class be improved? Again, be specific.

My favorite thing about the class I would say hands down was the group work. To finally interact and talk with someone about what we are learning, and different methods we were all using to complete our work was refreshing to say the least. Once again, this was my first online class and I definitely was not prepared for the sort of time that it required so when I had the chance to talk to my group members I saw how they were completing the discussions and other assignments and started to emulate them. For example, did you know that when you are posting to the Blogger, you can create a new post, and even if you forget about it till tomorrow or the next day, as long as it is still on your browser you can hit send and post it and it will post at the time that you originally hit “new post.”

In addition, one of things I did not like about the class was the way that it was set up online. I know we are the millennial generation and we are supposedly accustomed to learning from our little screen that links us to the “world”, but part of the reason I am getting my degree from San Jose State is to make connections, and engage in a classroom setting with my professor, and my peers. I know you’re thinking, well you should have not taken an online class then, well, you’re right, and this will probably be my last online class I take. Seeing how this is my first, I went into it with a little more optimism then I guess I should have.

Don’t get me wrong, I loved the professor and the content was refreshing; I just do not like how these courses are being offered in the first place. Just because something possible doesn’t mean it should be done, especially in the subject of Communications. In the Bay Area we have many different cultures, languages, and religions around us. I know that I can learn all about all of them from reading some statistic online, but it’s when we actually engage with those different cultures that we learn the most and gain the most perspective. If school begins to separate us from the world, and keeps us looking forward at the screen, then we will not know how to “Communicate” when we finally do have interaction. It would be interesting to see where online classes go in the future.

Question 1

1). What have you learned in this class over the course of the semester? Be specific.

First, I’d say I learned a lot about how to approach an online class. This was my first experience having to try and learn without having a scheduled time and place for a learning environment.

In addition, as far as subject matter, I find myself constantly analyzing arguments now. Even if the argument has nothing to do with me or my circumstances I still am intrigued and listen in on the different stances attempting to apply the different concepts we have learned over the course of the semester. I found that on almost every occasion where a discussion elevates into a heated argument, there is a least one fallacy in play. Most recently, while I was on my way to the Library, I overheard a couple arguing at each other about whether or not the boyfriend thought that one of the girlfriend’s friends was hot. After a few comments on either side I overheard the girlfriend loudly projecting her voice and stating: “Just tell me, I want to see if you pick up the things (appealing features) that she’s trying to show off.” The comment stuck with me as one that has probably been used by many women who think that they know what every man is thinking about them. I thought to myself about the argument, and where the premise and conclusion were. I realized that it was a clear appeal to vanity, or apple polishing.

I have been identifying concepts with arguments much more than just this example and am thankful that I had the opportunity to see things from a different perspective.

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.

Proof Substitute & Weaslers P3

Proof Substitute & Weaslers

This post will discuss the two above and give examples to both. A Proof Substitute is something that, I think, can sometimes be a good thing or a bad thing. It would be considered a good thing when it is coming from someone you trust. For example, pretend you were talking to your good friend and got in an argument about whether or not Eddie Murphy has played in a role of a vet doctor. For some reason the movie, “Dr. Doolittle” has slipped both of your minds. Your good friend tells you he knows that Murphy has played the role. You argue back that you cannot recall a movie in which he does. Your friend says, “dude common, trust me, he for sure has, you probably just forget seeing it.” The last line is an example of a Proof Substitute, because he is doing exactly that…substituting factual evidence for the truth.

A Weasler is normally used to state a claim but leaving yourself an out in case it is not true, or can be proven wrong with more knowledge. Words like, “possibly” or “as far as we know” can help you state a claim but not look completely stupid if it is wrong. For example, “Don’t quote me, but I think that this posts are due by Saturday at 11:55pm. J

Downplayers p2

Downplayers consume my life. A Downplayer is a sort of argument that minimizes the significance of a claim.

When I was growing up my mom always called me a “minimizer.” Whenever I did anything wrong or didn’t follow directions I would try and make it sound like a little thing. Like it was not that bad and I shouldn’t be punished for it. I’m sure my intentions are pretty clear; I was trying to get the lowest possible scale punishment. Now, I find myself doing it just a little less. An example of a downplay I would have used back in high school would be: “yeah the test was only a 30 points so I will be fine.” The reason this is an example of downplay is mostly due to the word “just”. “Just” can help you indentify downplay very fast in an argument. Another example a little more current and relevant would be: “I’ve only missed one discussion week, im sure our teacher will understand that we are humans and sometimes forget, so she’ll probably drop our lowest discussion week.” Why this is a downplay is because of my lack of responsibility for my actions. A significant identifier is “only.” When something is “only” this or “only” that it is usually a downplay.

Loaded Questions P1

In this post I would like to discuss loaded questions and how relevant they are to any organization that administers rules and regulations. I have witnessed, and received many loaded questions from any form of official in any organization. For example, my parents asking me: Why did you decide to go against our wishes and come home after curfew? This is a huge loaded question because who says that I “decided” to be late and come home after curfew? I could have been in many different situations that did not allow me to get home before curfew. What if I was pulled over by a cop and he decided to preach his life lessons of being a safe driver to me? I wouldn’t dare tell him to shutup.

Another example of a loaded question would be from the PO PO. I would say they are the kings of loaded questions. It seems they always assume the worst and ask questions already placing guilt just to twist you into so many different knots that by the end of it you do not even know if your innocent or guilty. For example, my friend told me a story of a Drunk in Public charged that he received awhile back. He said that they arrested him and took him into county jail. When he got there they lined everybody up and had them sit down one at a time to take a blow test. What he didn’t knkow is that legally you do not have to take a blow test if you do not want to. Legally, you can say no. But, he said, that when the cop sat him down, the cop said: “are you going to open your mouth?” in a tone that was as if he had said: “OPEN YOUR F#%^$*@ MOUTH!” this is totally a loaded question because it conceals the claim that he does not have to take the blow test if he does not want to.

Group Project Assessment

For my third blog this week I wanted to disciuss the Group Assingment to be turned in this week. I felt this was a challenging but overall good learning opportunity. My group specifically chose the United Nations Children Fund, better known as UNICEF. I had the opportunity to learn about UNICEF and everything they are doing to raise awareness in our country, as well as many countries across the globe, about the need for better care of our children. There are so many poverty striken kids in the world today and organizations such as UNICEF need help. I also enjoyed the assignment because I feel the different sections layed out for us in the assignment were very choppy. It gave us a challenge to make our paper flow, with a clear and concise idea, supported by main points. Our group met three times in the library for the assignment and we still felt rushed. In the end we were able to configure a very well written paper with solid transitions and supporting points. I enjoyed meeting with my group and sharing ideas and brainstorms on the assignment as well as getting to know some of them on a personal level.

J

General Claims P2

Further into the chapter something that interested me was Vague Generalitites. Vague Generalties are the different kinds of ways we can talk about a segment or group without giving a specific number for the listener to take into account. Just as we talked about “all” and “some” these are extra indetifiers that still do not specify exactly what amount of whatever quantity someone is talking about.

For example, “Many people showed up to the concert,” or “Very few of us remember to do these discussions in the beginning of the week and end up stressing themselves out during the weekend.” Taken from the last example, why it is considered a Vague Generality is because although you know it is a reltiviley low amount of people, you do not know exactly what number and you couldn’t be able to base much conclusion from the statement. However, we can base our judgement from these Vague Generalitites. Although we don’t have exact information, our brain allows us to make our own judgements anyway. It’s pretty cool stuff, I know.

General Claims P1

I found the beginning of the chapter to be very insightful as far as how to pick up on the language people use in everyday conversation. I especially liked the ideas behind the word, “some”. I think that most people use “some” intentionally to make a point but to also do it farely. When you state for example, “Some of the people did not like what Tim said.” It is implying to Tim that what he said was not bad, however, some people did not like it. Now, “some” as it talks about in the chapter is sometimes purposefully ambiguous. All but one person in the room could have not liked what Tim said, but whoever is delivering the comment could be trying to protect Tims feelings so they made it sound not as bad as it really may be. This situation could just as easily be flipped around, meaning maybe only two people didn’t like what Tim said, but now it sounds worse. As you can imagine, “some” can be a dangerous word, causing someone to feel a certain negative feeling, or a positive feeling, all based on their personal experience with word and how the judge it’s ambiguous meaning.

Week 6 Post3

In this post I’ll be discussing Conditionals and their contradictories…

A conditional claim is one that may seem like a compound claim because the calim can be separated into two different sentences, however, you’ll know it’s a conditional claim if the two sentences need each other to make sense. One statement is conditional on completely are validating the latter.

For Example: I’ll take the remote from you if you keep changing it.

There is two premises and but the 0nly mean one thing, you can identify these Conditonal claims easily by identifying the word, “if”. In addition, there other trigger words such as “then”.

If you are not sure whether it is a Conditional Claim and it has no “If” or “then” practice writing the claim differently to see if it can form into an “if…then” statement easily. If you can, you’ve found a Conditional Claim!

Another Example:

“cook the food so we can eat”

Re-written: “If you cook the food, then we can eat.”

Yes- Conditional Claim

Week 6 Post 2

I also learned about False Dilemmas in Chapter 6 of Epstien.

A “False Dilemma” is a claim, either compound or single, that offers too little of possibilities. It is most common in claims with the words “or” or “versus”. Epstein urges readers to pick up when they hear these words in a claim and think, “are there any other consequences or possibilities that can come out of this claim.”

For Example:

You need to get straight A’s in High School or you will not get into college.

Although this is a pretty simple example you can see that there are many other possibilities that can come out of not getting straight A’s. You can certainly get into a college getting B’s and A’s. The claim is defined as a False Dilemma because there are so many other possibilities as to what can happen if you do not get straight A’s.

Another example would be:

You need to post on your blog three times a week, 12 hours apart, or Professor Perez will hunt you down from the spirit world and hunt your dreams.

This awesome example it is a little tricky; although this may seem very true, and may frighten you, Professor Perez could do much worse to you if you do not post on your blog. The professor haunting you in your dreams is one tactic she could use, but she also has many other ways to keep you scared at night. This is a false Dilemma because all those possibilities are not stated.

October 2-8 Q1

One of the topics I found interesting in Chapter 6 was Compound Claims and their use of “or” for reasoning purposes.

In Epstein’s chapter 6, “Compound Claims” the author talks about the use of “or” as a good word that sticks two or more claims together. The idea is that the claims need to both be true in order to be a compound claim.

For Example:

“I can trade you money or we can trade for food.”

This is a compound claim because I am not making two claims about what should be done. The conclusion of this claim is me doing only one thing. Not two. This makes the words a compound claim.

Also, the utilization of “or”

There needs to be no possibly way that the claims cannot hold truth-value together. Both claims need to work and support what you are trying to do.

A Contradictory of a Claim is the opposite of a Claim.

For Example:

Kyle plays video games till 10:30 am.

`Contradictory: Kyle doesn’t play video games till 10:30am.

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.

-

Introductory Post

Hello!

My Names Kevin and I'm a third year Business Marketing major at San Jose State. I enjoy playing the Guitar and hanging out with bro's. One fun fact is that I'm an Eagle Scout, another is that I love to try and sing in the shower.

As far as communication experience goes, I am the VP of the SJSU Chapter of Delta Upsilon International Fraternity and consistently engage with people from all different walks of life with everything from sales and advertising to conflict management.

If any of you guys would like to collab with each other on an assignment please don't hesitate to ask!

Best,

Kevy