The Concept of Repairing Arguments

The Guide of Repairing Argument explains that, in order for an argument to be repaired, you must add a premise or conclusion only if it meet with the three requirements:

The argument become stronger or valid.
The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.
The premise is more plausible than the conclusion.

Here is an example: All cows says moo. Therefore, Bob says moo.

In order to repair this argument a premise need to be added to make this argument stronger. The premise should be, “Bob is a cow”, which will meet the requirement for repairing an argument and make this argument much better than before. It’s an obvious claim because people can only assume that either Bob is a cow or a person that imitating a cow saying moo. The premise that is added is to clarify the argument so that people don’t get confuse. Without the added premise the argument will be much weaker and people could misunderstand it.

So It's Bad, So What?

After finishing reading chapter 11 of Epstein today, the concept that I found that was interesting was the “So It’s Bad, So What?”. This section explains about dealing with bad arguments. The concept describes that if you were to involve in a bad argument you should try to discuss or explain it more thoroughly.  According to the text, arguments that violates the Principle of Rational Discussion is when the arguments are so bad that it’s beyond repair or when someone is trying to mislead you to another subject. Putting emotions into an argument can also be bad as well. By discussing with the person with their argument thoroughly it can sometimes be beneficial of for that person and yourself. When helping the person with his/her argument you shouldn’t try to him/her feel bad. Instead, explain why his/her argument is bad or tell him/her to support their premises more; it will be educated that person to avoid bad arguments. Overall, I found this concept to be interesting and useful.

Content Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion

Fallacies is used almost in every bad argument. There are lots of arguments that are fallacy in everyday life. The argument is a fallacy when none of the premises support the conclusion and whether the premise is dubious or implausible. The fallacy that stand out the most to me is the appeal to emotion. This fallacy tries to convince other with words that involves their emotions. Most people that use this fallacy are those that tries to persuades other, sell things people,or scam others.. For instance, a few week ago, I asked my friend about the a video game he played and he responded, “After you play this game, you will probably play it over again. It so fun”. He was really excited when we talk about the game then shows me reviews and game-play of the game to persuade me to play it. My friend kept bragging about until I played it. When I actually played the video game I was disappointed because it wasn't what I had expected and half of the stuff he said about the game wasn't even in there. It was like he lied to me to play the game.
This example is a appeal to emotion fallacy because my friend put his feeling into the argument to convince me into believing him.

The Structure of Arguments

For this exercise I chose example 2.

I’m on my way to school.1  I left five minute late.2  Traffic is heavy.3 Therefore, I’ll be late for class.4  So I might as well stop and get breakfast.5

Argument? Yes
 
Conclusion: I will be late for class, so I might as well stop and get breakfast.
 
Additional premises needed? I believe that there should be a premise after the forth sentence. The reason for the premise to be after the forth sentence is because the conclusion needs to be explained. Adding a new premise before the conclusion would explain why it’s okay to stop and get breakfast.  
 
Identify any sub argument: Sentences 1, 2, and 3 are independent sub arguments that lead to sentence 4.
 
Good argument? This is a good argument because it connects and easy to understand where it going. Without the added premise before the conclusion, this argument would not be efficient as it is.

I find this exercise to be useful because it helps you learn about the structure of arguments. I learn that when analyzing an argument you need to look at premises because that what makes up the argument.

Group Communication: Types of Leadership

According to chapter 3 of the small group communication book, there are four styles of leadership. These four styles of leadership depends on the decision making of the leaders of the groups. All of these types are different from each other in its own way.

The first styles of leadership is known as authoritarian leadership. In this type of leadership the leader would provide his or her opinion and communicate with the group. Instead of having a discussion the leader would explain his/her decision. This way it helps the group to move in a faster pace. The group is more like following the leader by his/her every decision. The group meeting for this type of group would be fast because there not going to be that much discussion between each other. I believe that this type of style of leadership is perfect for members that don’t like to share their thoughts or discuss and okay with following directions.

Consultative leadership uses the opinions and ideas of the members of the group. Unlike the Authoritarian style, this type of leadership involves more discussion between the leader and group members. Leaders that uses this method often ask the member for their opinion and decisions. This style is sometimes difficult for group members because the leaders will be asking the group for their every opinion. Leaders that uses this style are the ones that does not have enough information and great ideals on the assignment. This type of leadership is even worst for group members are shy, not that talkative, or does not have great ideas.

Participative leadership is a style that the leader works with the group member. It involves the the leader and the group members in solving problems and coming up with a decision together. This type of style often has great result because everyone cooperate with each other. Finally, laissez-faire leadership is when a leader is not there for the group majority of the time. It will hard for group members to contact the leader when they help. The leader would probably expect the group to do the assignment on their own without giving much help.

From my experiences with group assignments, the styles that the leaders I had in my groups mostly use were authoritarian and laissez-faire leaderships.

Strong VS. Valid Arguments

According to the texts of Epstein, for an argument to to be valid or strong it doesn’t depend on premise to be true, nor knowing the premise to be true, or whether someone thinks that the argument is valid or strong. The difference between a strong argument and a valid argument depends on the premise and the conclusion. An argument is strong is often when the conclusion is false. Not only does the conclusion has to be false; it sometimes depends on the premises has to be true. A strong argument often needs the premise to be detail with decent information to make it strong. That way it would have less counter-arguments. For a valid arguments, it can have false premises or true premises. A valid arguments can have false premises and must have a true conclusions.

An example of a valid argument that someone would say everyday would be: “If you don’t drink anything, you’ll get thirsty “.This example is valid because both of the premise and conclusion is true. When someone does not drink anything they will eventually become thirsty.

Here an example of a strong argument: “Every time I eat cereal with milk, I always end up going to the restroom many times. So, I am lactose intolerance”. This a strong example because the premise is true while the conclusion is false. The conclusion is false because I might not be lactose intolerance; it could be something else.

The Tests for an Argument to Be Good

In chapter 3 of Epstein, according to the text, in order for any argument to be a good argument it must pass three tests. An argument that does not pass any of these tests will be consider as a bad argument. The first test is for the premise to be plausible. In other words, the argument must have a good reason or believable. For the second test, the premise of the argument must be more plausible than the conclusion. Meaning that the argument must be more believable than the conclusion; the conclusion can be false.  Lastly, in the third test, the argument must be valid or strong.
Example: The great white is a type of shark. Great white sharks are carnivores. All sharks are carnivores.
This is an example of an argument because two of the premise is true while the conclusion might be false. The two premise is common knowledge because everyone knows that great white sharks is a type of shark and  eats other animals. The conclusion is might be false because not all types of sharks are carnivores.

Definition

A definition helps people understand the use of a word or a phrase when they don’t know it. Without the definitions of words, the human language probably would not exist or it would not make much sense. Anyways, during a conversation, people tends to give the definition of the words or statement to clarify what they are saying.

For instance, if I were to say something like, “a cheetah is a fast animal”, people would want me to be more specific. Therefore, I would replace my previous example by saying, “The cheetah is related to the cat family, it can accelerate faster than most sport cars, it’s also record as the fastest land animal in the world (according to wiki)”, which would help people to understand what I was trying to  explain. Without replacing my previous information, people will not be able to have a clear description on speed of the cheetah.

Another way to explain or define an object, is to show a picture of it or pointing it out. Although I believe that showing a picture is more suitable.  A friend of mine, Jack, told me  over the phone that he recently went to purchased a new car. He told me that he bought a Subaru WRX, and since I don’t know much about car brand or types, I asked him to describe it for me. After a few minutes, Jack gave up on explaining how the car looks like. Instead, he sent me a picture of the car to my cellphone and I was able to see it. This example shows that if you cannot define something verbally, it’s better to show a picture of it.