Pick one concept or idea from any point in the semester that you found useful or interesting.

The concept I found useful and the most interesting of the semester is fallacies. The thing I will  most remember about this class is fallacies. At first the concept of fallacies was very confusing but towards the end of the semester I finally got to understand the. As I mentioned in the first post I can now notice  fallacies every where from the TV or at school. I like how there are many kinds of fallacies and people can relate to them. One of the fallacies that hear a lot is appeal to common belief. This is when everyone is forced to believe in something just because everybody else is. For example everyone likes the Lakers so you should like them too. Another one that is interesting is appeal to pity because I see a lot of this in commercials. I see a lot of political ads posting appeal to pity. Overall fallacies were the most important thing I learned.

What was your favorite thing about this class? What was your least favorite thing about this class? How can this class be improved?

One of my favorite things about this class was the amount of time we had to do class assignments. The time was very flexible especially for blogs. I liked how we had to do the blogs in twelve hour intervals because it always kept me on track to do my homework. I also like how we were given a lot of time to do the group papers. We were given plenty of time to do the three group assignments. I also like how we did group reports instead of individual reports because it was much easier to complete the assignments. My least favorite thing about this class was not having an actual class to go to since some of the concepts were very confusing. Also it was hard for our group to get together. One of the ways this class can be improved is if the class meets at least once in the middle of the semester so that students that need help can ask questions.

What have you learned over the semester?

Overall I learned a lot over the semester. There are so many things I learned that I might forget a lot of the concepts. At the beginning it looked like a lot of the concepts were going to be very easy and simple to understand. As the semester progressed a lot of the concepts became harder to understand. Overall I learned a lot especially about fallacies. I never heard of fallacies before and it looked very interesting. At first I found it difficult to understand because the book did not use great examples. After reading other peoples examples from their blogs I finally got to understand them. Another concept that was interesting was appeal to emotion. After learning about this I realized that appeal to emotion was a part of our everyday lives. I notice it everywhere especially in TV commercials. Although though I learned about so many concepts, I still don't fully understand some of the concepts.

Cause and Effect in Population

One of the interesting concepts that we have not talked about was cause and effect in population. According to Epstein, cause and effect in population is when given the cause, there's a higher probability that the effect will follow than if there were not the cause. There are three kinds of ways to find evidence. First way is through a controlled experiment. In a controlled experiment there is one group that is administered the cause and one who is not, which is called the control group. Another way to find evidence is through an uncontrolled experiment: cause to effect. In this case we start from a suspected cause and see if the effect follows. The last way is an uncontrolled experiment from effect to cause. In this experiment we start with the effect in the population and try to account for how it got there. The example the book used was on smoking cigarettes.

Mission Critical Website

I found the mission critical website to be very helpful. It is neatly organized and easy way to understand certain concepts of critical thinking. This is the kind of website that I'm looking for because it talks about most of the concepts. It has  the definition for most of the concepts that we learned about. Not only does it give a definition, but it gives good examples as well. Another thing that I liked about it was the explanations of fallacies. Fallacies was one of  the few concepts that I had trouble understanding. After looking at the many fallacy links, it gave me a better understanding of fallacies. The fallacy links gave a lot of good and clear examples.  I also like how there is exercises that can help you out. One of the exercises I found interesting was the 40 fallacy review exercises. I like how it wanted you to identify what kind of fallacy each sentence was. Overall this website was very informative.

Cause and Effect

The cause and effect website was useful in showing a great example of causal arguments. The example was very clear and explained a lot about causal arguments. Although the website was very detailed, it was still kind of confusing. It was like they were explaining too many things at one time. I think it would have been better if the website explain the concept of causal arguments first then show an example. This website still taught me about causal argument. In order to determine the strength of the causal argument, it has to rely on three factors. According to the website, we must first see 'how acceptable or demonstrable the implied comparison is." In others we must see if there is a similarity between the circumstances. Second, we must see "how likely the case for causation seems to be". Lastly we must see "how credible "only significant difference" or "only significant commonality" claim is. Overall the website was helpful but I didn't understand it enough to get what the full concept is all about.

Judging Analogies

One of the concepts that we have not discussed is judging analogies. In order to judge analogies we have to make sure that the comparisons of both arguments share some similarities so we could find one general meaning from both sides.  In order to evaluate an analogy Epstein  explains that we must first check if it is in fact an argument and if there is a conclusion. After that we have to check if there is a comparison. Then we have determine what the premises is from both sides of the comparison. We also have to see if there is any similarities. After finding the similarities we have to check if they can be premises. There also needs to be a general principle that covers both sides of the argument. After that we must determine if the general principle really applies to both sides and see if the differences matter. Lastly we must see if the argument is strong or valid and to make sure if it's good.

Criteria Reasoning

The most difficult reasoning to understand was reasoning by criteria. I checked the link the professors blog provided but it didn't explain the reasoning really clear. The examples in the site were not clear as well. I tried to do some extra research on this concept but it would link me to other blogs from this class. Since the website was the only source I found, I had to analyze it more.  I didn't understand what they meant by "defining the criteria by which the outcome will be judged" at first but after reading over it more I finally got understand it. I understand that "defining criteria" meant find something that can later be judged then have a decision on it. For example "Your son wants a new car and fast car?  Lets see what we have. This car might be the one you're looking for." The criteria is searching for a new car while the decision is " this car might be the one for you".

Forms of Reasoning

The first form of reasoning described in the instructors blog is reasoning by analogy. According to the Epstein book reason by analogy is a comparison in an argument when "one side of the comparison we draw a conclusion and the other side we conclude the same. An example of this is " Raising tuition fees for the CSU's is like increasing the price of milk for a child. Sign reasoning is when two or more things are closely related that presence or absence of one indicates the presence or absence of the other. An example of this is "This guy is wearing a pair of rare Jordans, gold chains, and an a expensive jeans. He must be rich." Causal reasoning is tthe relationship when one event "cause" and another event " effect" in which the second event is caused by the first. An example of this is "In order for John to avoid injury he must stretch before the game. Reasoning by criteria is when  we judge the outcome of a decision and identify the best decision for the criteria. An example of this " It seems like your vacation plans  look very fun but shouldn't you vacation at this place as well. Reasoning by example is when we use reasons that we have experienced. " You should take this class because I did pretty good in it and the teacher is excellent. Inductive reasoning is using past observations and experiences to reason with a new argument. "The TV show went past thirty minute slot so the DVR didn't get to record the whole show. Next time I will record an extra five minutes just in case the show passes it thirty minute mark." Deductive reasoning is when the premises and conclusions are true. "All cars use gas. A Lexus is a car. A Lexus uses gas.

Apple Polishing

One of the few concepts Chapter 10 touched a bit on was Apple Polishing. The book didn't really talk a lot about apple polishing so I had to do some extra research. Apple polishing is when a person uses flattery or excessive compliments in order for the person to favor their opinion. One of the reasons why it is called apple polishing is that students would give their teachers apples so that the teachers would give them good grades. Apple polishing can be seen at work places especially when an employee is trying to get a raise or promotion. For example an employee might excessively compliment his or her boss of their clothing.  Another good example is if your friend has one extra ticket to a concert and you would act very nice to them just because you want the ticket. I've seen this also with tickets to sporting events and dances. People will only be nice at that time so they would get a ticket.

Appeal to Fear Ad

One of the most recent Appeal to Fear ads that I have seen recently were the campaign ads of the recent election. One ad in particular caught my eye which was an ad called "Polygraph" by the Jerry Brown campaign. The ad accuses Meg Whitman of being dishonest about voting, residency, and changing stories about an abused employee. It also accuses her of false advertising and her hometown newspaper saying she is "a loose relationship with the truth". The ad wants you to vote for Jerry Brown for governor.  This is showing appeal to fear because if you vote for her you will vote for a liar. People fear liars especially if they're running for a government position. This is a bad argument because its only reason to vote for Brown is of fear of voting for a liar. It also shows you that lying is the only concern of the candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25EHHX2nUjU&feature=channel

Appeal to Emotion

According to Epstein, appeal to emotion is a premise in an argument that you should believe or do something  because you feel a certain way. An example of appeal to emotion is, "Did you see the disaster? It's so devastating. We should donate some clothes to them."  One of the different aspects of appeal to emotion is appeal to pity. An example of appeal to pity is "If you feel bad for the schools sports team and have the time, donate some sports equipment." Another kind of appeal to emotion is appeal to fear which politicians and advertisers use to scare people.  An example of one often seen in  TV are the On Star commercials. The commercial show people in crashes needing help or people that are lost and they need directions. Another example of a appeal to fear are the Allstate commercials. One commercial stated "Every year thousands of teenagers go out for a drive and never comeback." This is an appeal to fear because they want you to buy their insurance so your teenager won't go missing or something like that.

Fallacies

The concept that I think that needs further discussion is the concept of fallacies.  Although I found fallacies to be very interesting, the Epstein book did not cover the concept as much as I wanted it to. The book did not have enough examples to make me understand what the fallacy is about. I had to go search up websites that explained more about the fallacies. When I went to the website, it showed great information and described the fallacies really well. They also put examples of the fallacies which made it easier for me to understand. Another thing I noticed was that there were more types of fallacies compared to the book which only offered a couple. I also utilized this website for doing group paper. Since I had to do my part on fallacies for the paper, I used some of the fallacies the website talked about that the book didn't show. This is the website I used http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/.

Usefulness of assignment 1 & 2

I found both assignments to be very useful. One of the things that were very useful was dividing the paper in to different parts. Many of these parts were concepts that came from the readings in the Epstein book. For example we had to find the premises, evidence, and the major claim for the first assignment. Those concepts were found in the earlier chapters of the reading. In the second assignment, the paper was also divided into different parts which were also concepts in the readings. For example the paper was divided into, concealed claims, fallacies and other concepts we recently read about. I find that putting those concepts in the paper make it easier to understand. I like how the concepts were implemented in the assignments because we could put use the concepts we read about. I also like how the assignments were related to current events so it was much easier to understand.

General Claims & Valid Forms

There are many different ways to use general claims. Certain words such as "all" and "some" are very common in general claims. When we use the word "all"  it means that everyone is used. When we use "some" it means that there is at least one.  There are many ways to use "all" and "some". A real life example is "All my friends are  partying tonight." Other ways we can say "all" is "my friends are partying tonight. Every friend of mines is partying tonight. Everyone of my friends are partying tonight." All this claims are very general and are probably not true because not all my friends like to party. A contradictory to this claim would be "some of my friends are partying tonight. At least one of my friends are partying tonight." Sometimes it is hard to determine a contradictory because there are so many ways to make a general claim.

Another thing I learned about was direct ways of reasoning with "all". An example of one is  "All my friends party. Jayne is my friend. So Jayne parties." This is an example of a valid argument. A weak argument usually argues backwards. An example of one is "All my friends party. Jayne parties. So Jayne is my friend." As you can see this is a weak argument.

Conditionals

One of the new concepts I learned about are conditionals. According to Epstein, a conditional claim is when a claim can be rewritten as an "if...then.." claim and must also have the same truth-value. In a "If A, then B" the A is known as the antecedent and B is known as the consequent. An example of a conditional claim is "If the Lakers win the game, then I will give you twenty dollars" This is conditional because if I'm making a conditional promise, but if I break the promise it then I won't give the money. The antecedent of the claim is  "If the Lakers win the game" and the consequent is "I will give you twenty dollars". There is also contradictory of a conditional in which if A then B would contradict A. An example of a contradictory of a conditional would be " If we win, they would lose all their money". The contradictory of this would  be "Although we win, they would lose some of their money". Since I added "although" it does not make the claim a conditional anymore. 

Counter Arguments

One of the things we do when we argue with other people is we raise objections. We raise objections when we think an argument is bad. In other words we are making another argument that questions the other argument and trying to prove it is bad.  " Everyone should buy a Prius. Prius saves more gas than most cars. The Prius is also good for the environment." A person that would  raise objections would then say. " The Prius is too expensive. The Prius is not good for big families. The Prius also have high maintenance costs." One of the others things I learned about was refuting an argument.  According to Epstein, the three direct ways of refuting an argument are show that at least one of the premises is dubious, show that the argument isn't valid or strong, and lastly show the conclusion is fake. One of the other ways to refute an argument is indirectly in which you have to reduce to the absurd. In order to this you must that the some of claims are false and dubious and then draw an unwanted conclusion.

Compound Claims

One of the concepts I didn't know about but see all the time are compound claims. According to Epstein, a compound claim is claim made up of multiple claims but can be viewed as only one. A good example of a compound claim is "The Lakers are going to win the championship or the Heat the will win." This is a simple example because there are two claims, one claim is the "Lakers are going to win the championship" and the other claim is "the Heat will win". This claim is also an Alternative claim because they are separated by "or". Another claim I learned about is a contradictory claim. A contradictory claim is a claim that has an opposite truth value in any way. An example of  a contradictory claim is  if one claims "The Lakers are the best NBA team" and the contradictory is "The Lakers are the worst NBA Team". These two claims contradict each other because one claim says "best" and the  other says "worst".

Bad Appeals to Authority

One of the concepts that interested me was bad appeals to authority. According to Epstein, bad appeals to authority is when people accepts a claim from someone who doesn't know the subject really well  or wants to mislead people in to believing something. One of the most common things I hear that people say is the world is going to end in 2012. People that often say this are not scientist or experts in the world ending. Probably these people watch videos on YouTube or read articles not made by experts. This gets very annoying especially when my cousin starts talking about it. He's not an expert and he often watches videos on YouTube made by  random people. Just because a lot of people believe the world is going to end in 2012 doesn't mean they are right. Luckily I am not one of those people. This is one of the many examples of bad appeals to authority.

Advertisements on the Internet

One of the most annoying things I see on the internet are the advertisements. They are in almost every website and are also very convincing and sometimes misleading. Advertisements are also popping up in popular sites such These advertisements range from cheap cruises, free ipods, to cosmetic products that remove pimples. Sometime clicking on to these ads could lead to virus or constant pop-ups. One of the most annoying ads are the ones when an add pops up and says "Congratulations you won...." These are also known as the talking ads. Some of these ads similar to the one on top are known to be viruses if you keep clicking on them. I get very cautious clicking on  to these ads. According to Epstein, we must evaluate the premises and see if there is good reason to believe the argument is true. There is also certain criteria in order to accept or reject the claim. For example one of the ways  we can accept the claim is if its from our own experiences. I remember my friend told me to sign up to win a free ipod. In order to get one, I would have to email 8 people and then those  people would have to email 8 different people and then go on forever. Another way we can accept a claim is if it is made by reliable media outlet. For example I read a news article talking about an ad that was misleading. http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-02/click-here-if-you-want-free-ipod

Repairing Arguments

According to Epstein, in order to fix a defective argument  we could add a premise or conclusion if the argument becomes stronger or valid, the premises is plausible, and the premises is more plausible than the conclusion.
An example of an argument  would be "John is a daily commuter. John should buy a Toyota Prius. The Toyota Prius is more suited with John than a Hummer."  In order for this argument to be good we must add "The Prius saves a lot " and "The Hummer kills a lot of gas". The premises are more plausible because we know the Prius definitely saves more gas than a Hummer. The Conclusion could be false though because John might need the Hummer for its large size to carry his equipment for work. If we added "John needs a gas saving car", the argument would make no sense since its obvious John would need to by the Toyota Prius.

Practice Mentoring

One of the readings that interested me was the one about Practice Mentoring. A mentor is someone that you can look up to. Mentors are usually older and have more experience than the person that they are mentoring. The protege is the person the mentor is mentoring. The protege gains experience, recognition, and friendship from their mentor. In order of mentors to learn and be successful they must cooperate and be willing to learn. According to the group communication book, there are four stages that a mentoring relationship progresses. The first stage is Initiation in which the mentor and protege get to know each other well first. The next step is cultivation  in which the mentor and protege make a stronger relationship with each other. The third step is separation, in  which the protege moves on and becomes more developed in the organization. The relationship between the two starts fade away because they no longer need each other. The last step is redefinition, in which the two are now equal with each other and hold the same position in the company.

Content Fallacies

One of the content fallacies that interested me was the "Appeal to emotion".  In an appeal to emotion fallacy, someone or something forces you to believe that something is good or bad for you. It also involves the persons emotions on to believing something. This fallacies is usually seen to convince others to do or get something. This can be seen in television ads. One of the common examples I've seen are when people are forced or peer pressured to drink. I went to a get together with a couple of friends and there where people drinking. My friend was forcing her cousin to drink. She was telling her it will make you feel good and happy. As time progressed, my friends cousin got drunk and it look like she was having a good time. Unexpectedly, she started getting a head ache and eventually threw up and passed out. Luckily she felt better the next day. In this example, my friends cousin was convinced to drink because she thought it would make her feel good but she didn't know the consequences of throwing up and getting a head ache. This is an example of appeal to emotion because someone was convinced to do something

Complex Arguments for Analysis

My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard. 1 People do not like living next door to such a mess. 2 He never drives any of them. 3 They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. 4 It is bad for the  neighborhood, and it will decrease property values. 5

Argument: Yes
Conclusion: It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.
Additional Premises needed:  If 2, 4, then 5.
Identify any subargument: Claim 3 is a subargument because its claiming he doesn't drive them compared to other claims where he's giving a reason to the conclusion.
Good Argument: Yes because the premises are plausible and they support the conclusion

This exercise was very useful. It makes it easier to breakdown the argument and identify the parts much easier. The exercise help me point out the premises and the conclusion more easier. I like how we got to label the claims. It made it more noticeable to point them out. I think this exercise would be put togood to use for future exercises.

Types of Leadership

One of the topics I found interesting was from the Group Communication. I find the different kinds of leadership very interesting. The first type of leadership is an authoritarian leadership. An authoritarian leadership the leader usually makes all the decisions without the help of any of the other group members.  The leader then addresses the decision to the group. Even though other group members might not be happy with the decision, decisions are made quicker. In a consultative leadership, other group members ideas and opinions are taken to consideration in order for the decision to be made. The final decision though is made by the leader. One of its drawbacks is it makes the leader look like other people are participating even though they're not. The next type of leadership is participative leadership in which a leader works with other group members to make a decision. Everyone in the group is involved and the members work together to finish they're goal. Decisions take longer to make because of everyone's input to the work. The last type of leadership is laissez-faire in which there is barely or no direct leadership. The group just works together in order to complete a task.  The leader usually doesn't have a lot of input and barely leads the group. This leadership is usually the least effective style of leadership.

The type of leadership I saw in school the most was the participative leadership. The leader would always worked with the group and keep everyone in check.

Strong vs. Valid Arguments

According to Epstein, a strong argument must have  a way for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false at the same time.  In order for an argument to be valid, the premises cannot be true and the conclusion must be false at the same time. An example of a strong argument is " Everyday my friends and I noticed that the parking lot is full by twelve. Therefore the parking lot is  full by twelve." This is a strong argument because the premises are true and the conclusion could be false. The premises could be true because it shows proof that my friends and I see the parking lot.  A valid argument would be "The parking lot gets full at 12. Therefore the parking lot is always full by twelve." This is valid because we don't know if the premise is true and the conclusion could be false. We don't know if the premises are true because we don't know who saw the parking lot. It could be some random person who hasn't seen the parking lot.

Testing for a Good Argument

According to Epstein, in order for an argument to be good, it must pass three test. First, the premises must be plausible.  Next, the premises must be more plausible than the conclusion. Lastly, the argument needs to be valid or strong.

Argument: The Lakers are the 2010 NBA Champions. They have Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol to lead the team. The Lakers will repeat as champions next year.

The premises are plausible because we all know the Lakers won the championship and both Kobe and Gasol play for them. The premises are more plausible than the conclusion because we don't know if the Lakers will win again next year. Lakers could possibly not make the playoffs. This shows that the conclusion could possibly be false. The argument is strong because we know the premises are true and the conclusion could be false.It is invalid because although the premises are true, another team might win the championships.

Deliberation and Participation in Groups..

One of the hardest parts of working in groups is trying to get everyone to participate. In the past, I've experienced a lot of unequal participation in groups.  The book gave four examples of why people choose not to participate.  Apprehension is when a person is scared to express their thoughts to the group.  Other people may lack self-esteem in which they think their ideas are not good enough. Some people fear the dominance of other members of the group and eventually feel left out. The last example  the book gave was status differences. Some members of the group might be more smarter than others in the group. Members who are in lower positions might choose not to contribute to the members in higher positions.

One of the things I noticed working in groups was that people who knew each other did more of the work while the other members who didn't know each other contributed less. I remember in my sophmore year in high school when I did a group project with four of my friends and another student who I didn't know. My friends and I worked on the project in our friends house but the other student just contributed the information to us at school because we didn't know. My friends and I had more dominance because we made up the majority.

Vague Sentence

 A vague sentence is a sentence that is usually  unclear, unspecific and can lead to misunderstandings.I hear many vague sentences all the time usually from my friends and my family. One of the most frequently vague sentences  I always hear from my friends is "Warren, let's hangout right now" or "Lets chill". I always get text messages of those two sentences. Usually I reply back and say okay but its so vague that we don't know what to do. When they say "Let's hangout ," do they mean hang out as in getting something to eat or watching a movie. This sentence is very unclear because it does not state what we're going to do specifically. Another vague sentence I hear is from my brother. I asked him what time he was going home and he said "I'm going home later." This sentence is unclear because it doesn't show how late he's coming home. Does he mean coming late at 9 or late at midnight.

Question 1. Subjective and Objective Claims

There are many examples of subjective and objective claims. A subjective claim is a claim based on someones opinions, beliefs, or ideals whether it is true or false. An example of a subjective claim is "The Lakers are the best team in the NBA". Although the Lakers are the current NBA champions, this claim is still based on my opinion. Other people might claim that the Miami Heat is the best team because they have Lebron James and Chris Bosh. This too is a subjective because it is based on their opinions.

An objective claim is a more factual claim whether its true or false. A recent example of a true objective claim is "The Lakers are the 2010 NBA Champions". This is an objective claim because it is a fact that the Lakers are the 2010 champions. The claim shows a date which is factual. An example of a false objective claim is today's date is December 25, 2008. Although the statement is false, the claim uses a date which makes it factual.

Introduction

My name is Warren Modesto and I am a third year Geography major in San Jose State. I'm twenty years old and from Santa Clara, California.  I attended Wilcox High School. I am Filipino and very family oriented. I am a huge basketball fan and my favorite team is the Lakers.  On my spare time, I like to hang out with family and friends and cruise on my Lexus.
I took a communications class my freshmen year. I took public speaking. Overall I had a decent communication experience. I was very active with the Filipino Youth Coalition and somewhat social back in high school but in college I communicated with less people. I think my communication skills are improving the more I learn. I hope to learn how to communicate and problem solve from this class. This is also my first time taking an online class so I'm not use to doing a lot of work online.