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.