Repairing Arguments

The book gives us many different examples of arguments that need to be repaired or are just fine the way they are. A good example that I have chosen comes from my own personal experiences. For instance, " Not having my own car is a nusiance because I always have to rely on other people. My friends always have to give me rides when we hang out. My dad is always late when he has to pick me up form places. All of my friends have their own cars except me. As soon as I find a job, it will be difficult to get a ride to go work my shifts because I don't have my own car. Therefore, my parents should buy me my own car.

This argument is pretty good except for the sentence, "My friends always have to give me rides when we hang out," because the argument will be better without it.

Organizational Culture

The definition of organizational culture from the Group Communication text is "its members' relatively stable perceptions of their organization and norms--emerges over time, in much the same way as  the cultures of nations  or ethnic groups develop."

The book says that having good communication either requires you to understand the culture or let the culture guide you about what are appropriate behaviors in a organization. For instance, some organizations encourage their members ask questions give their opinions and suggestions. While other organizations do not like having open communication. These type of organizations would rather have their members just do their own work and then go home with no questions asked. It depends on a person's personality if they want an organization that is similar to a family or just work.

Depending on the organizational culture, each organization has its own idea of how they take risks. There a few organizations that will give praise to a person who takes a risk. But other organizations would rather not take risks and stick to the plan.

Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion

I chose to discuss Begging the Question which states, "The point of an argument is to convince that a claim is true. So the premises of an argument have to be more plausible than the conclusion."

This is basically saying that the first few statements that a person is arguing about have to be believable because the argument would be considered weak if the premises were not plausible. People are not going to agree or understand what you are arguing about if the premises are not plausible. The people listening would probably just choose to not listen to the argument.

One example of Begging the Question that I can remember from my everyday life is me arguing with my parents to buy me and own car. My argument was, "Not having a car gives me too many restrictions, I have to rely on others for rides and it gets too inconvenient for my dad and I because we both have to share the car. I am late to everything because I don't have my own car and it restricts me from getting a part-time job."

The premises of my argument are believable which it make it a strong argument.

"My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard. People do not like living next door to such a mess. He never drives any of them. They look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values" ( Epstein 225).

Argument? : yes
Additional premises need?: He never drives any of the cars so he should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.
Identify any subargument: Sentence 4, "They look old and beat up all over the place" is a subargument.
Good Argument? Yes because the preises are probable.

This exercise was pretty useful because I was able to analyze ad disset an argument. It gave me a better understanding about what makes a good argument by breaking it down and looking at each sentence. Now, I am able to look at arguments and analyze each sentence and see whether or not it is plausable and if it supports the main argument.

Types of Leadership

One section that I found interesting in the Small Group Text was the different types of leadership there are. The textbook says that there are four decision-making styles when it comes to leaders. The four types are authoritatrian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire. Authoritarian leadership is when the leader does not consult any decisions with their group. Usually the group members aren't satisfied with this type of leadership. Consultative leadership is when the leader takes the opinions and input of their group into consideration before making a big decision. Participative leadership is when the leader actually works with its group to achieve goals and tasks. Decisions will usually will take longer but everybody in the group is usually satisfied. Lastly, Laissez-faire leadership doesn't directly lead the group. The group will work on their own without much or any leadership. The text says that the group is typically not satisfied with this type of leadership.

Strong Vs Valif Agruments

A strong argument is an argument that has good reason behind it. In order to determine whether an argument is valid strong is to have the conclusion follow the premises. . The premises have to be more probable than the conclusion of the argument in order for the argument to be considered to be strong.


An example of a strong argument is "The store, Jessica McClintiock only sells dresses because everyone I have seen or talked to buy only dresses from there. Therefore Jessica McClintock does not sell clothing that is not formal dresses." This is an example of a strong argument because the conclusion follows the premise. The store, Jessica McClintock does not selling other clothes like jeans, or shirts because the story is mainly formal dresses for young women.

An example of a valid argument is “Beth said she got an A in English class. I believe her because all her tests were A’s and she always turned in her homework on time. So she really did get an A in English class.”

A Good Arguement

According to the textbook, there are three tests for an argument to be considered a good arguement. The first test is the argument's premises have to be probable. The second test is that the premises have to be stonger than the conlusion of the argument. The third test is that the argument must be valid.

Here is an example of an arguement : "Bob cell phone service provider is Verizon Wireless. But the other day he came in to work talking on his iphone. Therefore, Bob changed his cell phone provider to AT&T."

This argument is a good argument because most people know that AT&T is the only cell phone service provider that carries that iphone right now. The first premise is most likely true. But the conclusion could be false because perhaps Bob was using someone else's phone which happened to be the iphone. This arguement passed the first two tests I mentioned. But I am not sure if it passes the last test. The arguement is relatively strong but not very strong. There could be other reasons why Bob is talking on an iphone.

Prescriptive Claims and Value Judgements

In chapter two of the textbook, "Critical Thinking", Prescriptive Claims, Descriptive Claims and Value Judgments are discussed. A prescriptive claim is a claim that tells the reader what should be. For example, "Wearing animal fur as clothing is cruel," is a prescriptive claim because it is telling the reader they should not wear animal fur as clothing. A descriptive claim  just states something and does not say what should be like a prescriptive claim. An example of a descriptive claim is, "Bob has a blond hair." A value judgement is a very vague claim that suggests what is right, wrong, good, bad, better, worse, etc. One example of a value judgement is "Doing drugs is bad." This sentence is a value judgement because it is vague and has the word, "bad". The word, "bad," implies what people should not do. The sentence is vague because there are many questions that could be asked about it. For instance, which drugs? Coffee is a drug, is that bad too? How are drugs bad? Bad for a person emotionally or physically?

Vague and Ambiguous Sentences

A vague sentence is a sentence that could be understood in several different ways and theres no way of finding out what the sentence truly means until the speaker clarifies what the sentence actually means. An ambiguous sentence is a sentence that either has two or very few ways to be understood.

My example of a vague sentence comes from watching television the other day and a perosn said that "Many young people like President Obama." This a definitely a vage sentence because people can ask so many questions about it. How young are the "young" people? High Students? College Students? People in their late 20's and 30's? Do the young people like him for his policies or just because he seems like a cool guy? How many young people across the country? Therefore this sentences is a vague sentence because there are many ways to  understand it.

My example of a ambigous statement is hearing two people talk at the grocery store. Behind me was a mother and her daughter, the mother told her daughter that "the meeting would be at 8 o clock tomorrow."
When I heard that sentence, I wondered, 8:00am or 8:00 pm? This is a ambiguous sentence because there are only two ways of understanding it.