Further Discusion

A topic that we have discussed that I believe needs further discussion is the slippery slope argument. In the book, it only gives one definition and it says that it "is a bad argument that uses a chain of condittionals, at least one of which is false or dubious "(Epstein 133). So I decided to do some research on the further definition of what is a slippery slope. According to my research, the slippery slope is if A occurs then the chances are mucher for B to occur as well. I found out that a slippery slope could also either have a fallacy or not. An example, if "a vase from the shelf falls down, it is more likely for the rest of the items on the shelves to fall down as well."A conjunction fallacy also relates to a slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument basically means that if something happens that it will make something undirsarble to occur.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Slippery_slope

Usefulness

After completing the first two assignments I have learned a lot about how to make effective arguments, social organizations, and how to distinguish a weak arguments from a strong argument. For instance, assignment 2 which is based on Social Organizations gave me very useful knowledge. My group and I chose to discuss PETA which stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I was never aware of how animals were cruelly treated by humans for experiments, entertainments, clothing, and food. I was shocked by graphic images PETA put on their websites. For instance, there is video of a bull being killed for entertainment because it is traditional in that particular country. This assignment has made me contemplate my views about animals rights. Now, I feel that I stand against animals being used for entertainment, clothing and experiments. Animals are living organisms and deserve rights just like humans do. For this assignment, we had to find if there were any fallacies in the social organizations argument. I found a few like, "strawman". We also had to look for concealed claims. This assignment helped reinforce the lessons from the Epstein textbook.

Chapter 8

In Chapter 8, I learned about General Claims and their contradictories. The books says that people make general claims all the time by using the word, "some". For example, "some peoeple  will go to school tomorrow. According to the text, in order to use "some" it means that at least one person will go to school tomorrow in order for it to be true. People used the word "some" because they are not sure of the exact amount or number. A story that I have is, my psychology instructor was telling the class last week that
"some people will go to the experiment fair November 7th if they want to complete their required experiments assignment." My psychology instructor was mentioning how at least one person from the class will go to the experiment fair. In chapter 8, I also learned about Precise Generalities which are general statements that have a precise number in the the argument. For instance, a personal story of mine is that, my friend was telling me that "getting married doesn't always turn out to be a fairy tale because 50% of couples end up in divorce."

Reasoning in a chain and the Slippery Slope

I also learned about Reasoning in a chain and the slippery slope from Chapter 6.
According to the text there is a formula on how to reason in a chain. " If A, then B, If B, then C, So if A, then C" (Epstein 132). One example of reasoning with a chain is:
If Juan doesn't go to school tomorrow, he will fail his test.
If Juan fails his test, then Juan's parents would be upset with him.
If Juan's parents become upset with him, then he will not be getting a new car.
So if Juan doesn't go to school tomorrow, then Juan will not be getting a new car.

But you could also reason in a chain badly. Here is an example of reasoning in a chain badly:
Go to class! If you don't go to class then you might miss something important the professor talked about.
Then, you might fail a test. Then you might be put on academic probation. Then you will lose your scholarship. Then you will have to drop out of school. Your life would be over.

Although this is written badly, you can easily correct it.
The book talk about Slippery Slope argument which "is a bad argument that uses a chain of condittionals, at least one of which is false or dubious "(Epstein 133).

Raising Objections and Refuting an Argument

I learned about raising objections and refuting and argument in chapter 7.
People raise objections when somebody argues with an argument. According to the text, "raising objections is a standard way to show that an argument is bad"(Epstein 149). When someone raises objections we are showing that the argument is not strong or we start questioning a premise. An example of raising objections is
Bob: Going to college is a waste of time and money.
Ben: No its not, people go to college to start their careers and get a head in life. (objection)
Bob: Well, I can get ahead in life by working at a regular job and building my way up.(answer)
Ben: It will be easier just go to college, besides most careers want people to have at least a bachelors degree or even a masters degree. (objection)
Bob: The career that I'm thinking of getting into doesn't require me to go to college. (answer)

The textbook says that you can either refute and argument directly or indirectly. One way to directly refute an argument is to prove at least one of the premises is dubious. One way to indirectly refute an argument is to "reduce to the absurd" which is "to show that at least one of the several claims is false or dubious" (Epstein 150).

Compound Claims and the Contradictory of a Claim

Two things that I learned  from chapter 6 were compound claims and the contradictory of a claim.
According to the text, a compound claim is "one composed of other claims, but which has to be viewed as just one claim" (Epstein 113). The word "or" can connect to claims and turn it into a compound claim. An example of a compound claim is "Either Tanya will attend Stanford University in the fall or will attend UC Berkeley in the fall."

According to the text the contradictory of a claim is "one that has the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances. Sometimes a contradictory is called the negation of a claim" (Epstein 114). An example of a the contradictory of claim is, "My mom is going to Whole Foods this afternoon.....My mom is not going to Whole Foods this afternoon." Another example is, "My mom or dad will wash the car today....Neither my mom nor dad will wash the car today."

Inferring and Implying

According to the textbook Inferring and Implying is "when someone leaves a conclusion unsaid, he or she is implying the conclusion. When you decide that an unstated claim is the conclusion, you are inferring that claim" (Epstein 74). It is very common for people to imply things during everyday conversation. We assume that everybody will know the unstated conclusion because it seems obvious. People have to remember that everybody is different and some things may see obvious to one person but not to another person. Sometimes, it is better to just be upfront and say exactly what you are trying to say.  An example of a statement where someone is implying something is "Bob doesn't like restaurants that sell greasy food, therefore he doesn't like Jack in the Box." I can infer from this statement that Bob won't eat at Jack in the Box because it sells greasy food according to him.

Advertising and the Internet

I chose to discuss this advertisment of Beyonce Knowles as the spokesperson for the makeup line, "Loreal Cosmetics."In this Advertisement, there is a quote by Beyonce who says, "This makeup is so true to my own skin, it actually mimics it." According to section B of the textbook people must either reject or accept claims. Viewers will either reject or accept this claim from personal experience or other sources. People might have already tried this foundation and had good results. Or they might have tried it, and have had negative results. Fans of beyonce knowles might accept the claim simply because they trust that Beyonce would never be a spokesperson for Loreal unless she really believed and used the products. This advertisement is considered an  argument according to section C because many advertisements are arguments with conclusions telling people to buy the product. The premise of the Loreal advertisement is that Beyonce uses Loreal foundation and she loves it. Therefore, people should buy the foundation.