Concept that was Interesting

One concept that I found interesing  this semester is inferring and implying because we use it so often in our everyday lives. I could really relate to this concept because I imply things with friends all the time. 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). In daily conversations with other people we imply things. We assume that people know what we are talking about without fully explaining it. An example of implying is "I don't date fat people, therefore I would not dare Bob." I can infer that the person thinks Bob is fat. Sometimes it is best to be more upfront with people too. Another example of implying and inferring is "Jennifer does not like ugly clothes, therefore she will not shop at Kohls." I can infer from this statement that Jennifer thinks the clothes and Kohls department store are ugly.

My favorite, least favorite and what can be Improved.

My favorite part of this class was the fact there was plenty of details about assignments. I liked that our assignments were always clearly explained and given to us early in advance so we had plenty of time to work on them. I also liked that the blog questions were very clear and sometimes fun to discuss. I did like reading peoples comments on my blog posts as well.  It was interesting to read about other peoples viewpoints. The second group assignment which was about talking about a social organization was interesting. I liked learning about a social organization, in particular, PETA really changed my view on animals and their rights. My least favorite part of this class was having to post blogs 12 hours apart. I did not like that because sometimes I wished I could have gotten all the blogs done all at once. I also did not like the third group assignment which was the "group faciliation paper." It thought it was difficult to get together with my group because we all had such a busy schedule. It was also a hassle to try and get people together to discuss the assignment. I think what can improved in this class is that the blog posts should have no time restrictions. Other than that, the class was great and useful.

What I have Learned

Although I learned several things from the textbooks, Learning appeal to emotion really stuck out to me. This semester I learned about appeals to emotion. An appeal to emotion is "a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way" (Epstein 191). People use appeal to emotion in everyday conversations in order to persuade people to do or believe something. There are several different kinds of appeal to emotion. There is appeal to pity, Appealing to fear, appeal to spite, calls in your debts,  two wrongs make a right, a feel good argument, and wishful thinking. Appeal to pity is to basically try and persuade people to do or believe something that by making people feel sorry for the person using appeal to emotion. For instance when charities try to get people to donate money, they might use images that will make you feel pity to donate money. Appealing to fear can be used by teachers trying to persuade students to not cheat on tests or homework. For example, the teachers could explain to students that there will be serious consequences for students who cheat on tests or homework.

The Normal Conditions

One section fo chapter5 that I thought was useful for us to know is the Normal Conditions. According to the textbook, Normal Conditions are "for a causal claim, the normal conditions are the normal conditions  are the obvious and plausible unstated claims that are needed to establish that the relationship between purported causes and purported effect is valid or strong" (Epsetin 303). An example of normal conditions is
Bob was at home by himself when the thunderstorm struck.
The power turned off because of the thunderstorm at 7:30 pm.
Bob doesn't normally stay at home by himself at 7:30 pm at night
Bob was standing next to the lamp when the power went off.
There was nothing else unusual going on at the time..
This example could keep on going for as long as we like. According to the text, in arguments, we only mentions or put in parts that we think are significant to know. We normally do not state the obvious in arguments.

Mission Critical Website

I thought the mission critical website was much more useful than the cause and effect website because it talked about various topics. For example, I thought it was useful to know all the different types of sentences in arguments. Commands and exclamations are pretty rare in critical thinking arguments but they are the only sentences that cannot be considered true or false. These types of sentences are occur more frequently when you just got into a car accident or at a party. According to the wesbite, rhetorical questions occur more frequently in an argument. Rhetorical questions are questions that do not require or expect an answer. However rhetorical questions are used to make a point. For instance, an example of a rhetorical question is a television host asking it audience, "Who hasn't ever made a mistake?" This question is indicating that everybody makes mistakes. People automatically know its a rhetorical question. Most sentences in critical thinking are called statements or claims as well.

Cause and Effect Website

The cause and effect website gives an example of a bicyclist illegally moving into the traffic lane which causes a driver to slam on its break. The first car slamming on its break causes car behind it to rear end them. Using inductive reasoning, the arguments are that the bicyclist caused the accident or the first car caused the accident. All of these arguments have the form of an inductive argument. The website said that it is very likely for causation to occur in the real world. I thought it was useful to know the two rules of causation which are that "the cause must precede the effect in time" and "even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation." I also thought it was usefull to know that causal arguements use both difference  and commonality reasoning. In conlusion, even though we have already learned about cause and effect. This website helped to give more information on cause and effect. It is good to know more details about it in order to fully grasp the concept.

Analogies in the Law

According to the Epstein texbook, analogies in the law "are presented as detailed, carefully analyzed arguments, with the important similarities pointed out a general principle stated " (Epsetin 257).  We are reasoning  by analogy when we draw a conclusion from comparing subjects which suggest an argyment. In the law, similarites and differences must be pointed out. We use reasoning by analogy in the law because when judges rule cases, they have use reasoning by analogy. They compare their opinions on what should be the outcome of the case and with history's opinion on how the case should be ruled. Like the constution for example. Law officials have compare the rules of the constitution to present day beliesfs. For instance people these days use reasoning by analogy when discussing the controversial law, "don't ask don't tell." People go back and forth with the constitutions laws and present day beliefs.