Further Discussion: Fallacies

The concepts that I believe that I should cover again are fallacies. The reason for that is the some of the examples that the book gave are not clearly explained or is hard to understand. For example I didn't really get begging the question fallacy when I first read about it. After I did some research on the web it turn out to very simple. From my experiences some of the examples of fallacies in the book are not really well describe. Some are really easy to get while some of the example are hard to understand. After learning about all of the fallacies that is cover by the recent chapter, I found that it's easier to remember the fallacies by the section they are in. For example, violating the Principle of Rational Discussion is where several fallacies such as begging the question, strawman, slanters, and others are under. Some fallacies in the book does not give clear examples, which sometime could be confusing for readers. Here is a website I found with several fallacies and examples of them: http://www.drkenhunt.com/papers/everyday.html.

Group Assignment Review

The second group assignment was interesting because involves research on an organization. The organization that our group picked was PETA; which was quite amusing. First off, I didn't know much about this organization beside that they were against killing and eating animals. But after looking into their website, I found much more information about them. Using materials that was cover from Epstein also helps me have a better understand while doing the research on this organization. For example, such as reasoning, fallacies, emotion of appeal, and also endorsements are used within PETA articles, slogans, and other. When working as a group it was also enjoyable because our group was able to cooperate very well. The group meeting was also helpful. Our group was able to get down to the subject and broke down the assignment evenly to each member. This assignment was useful because it help me learn about the PETA organization more thoroughly and improved my communication with my group members.

General Claims and Precise Generalities

After reading chapter 8, I learned several new concepts that were interesting. The parts that were interesting to me were general claims and precise generalities.

Section A describes the about the two words “All” and “Some” used in general claims. All means “Every single one, no exceptions.” While “Some” means “At least one.” Which is pretty simple because anyone who speaks the English language should know about these words. For instance, my lab instructor told the whole class the other day, “All urine samples must be dispose into the toilet. Some of you might pour it down the sink” The use of the word “All” in this example is that the lab instructor want every single urine sample to go into the toilet.

The first part of section C explains about the precise number. Using a precise number in an argument can either strengthen the argument or weaken it. For instance, 62% of all students who take biology from Mrs. P will pass. Darrell took Mrs. P's biology course last semester. Therefore, Darrell passed Mrs. P biology course. This argument is weak because there is a 38 percent that the premise could be true. A Higher percentage would have strengthens the argument. Also the precise number does not always have to be very high to make all argument stronger, in some cases where very low percentage could work as well.

Counter-Arguments

In chapter 7, I found that counter-arguments to be quite amusing. The counter in counter-argument is pretty much as it’s stated. Meaning that it’s somewhat against an argument but not exactly. According to chapter 7 of Epstein it explains that in order to confirm that an argument might be bad is by raising objections. By raising objections , it can bring out the dubious premises in the arguments to prove that an argument is weak.

Here is an example between my dad and my little brother a few years ago.
Brother: You should buy me a Wii for my next birthday.
Dad: Why should I? you already have a PS3. (Objection)
Brother: But the new Super Smash Bros. games on the Wii that coming out.
Dad: Buying another game console plus the video game will cost too much money! (Objection)
Brother: It’s shouldn’t cost that much; it’s cheaper than the PS3 and you can move around more playing the Wii. I could also chip in some of my money.
Brother: It’s cheaper on sale during the holidays.

In this example my dad raised objections because he wanted to know why he should buy my brother a Wii. Without raising any objections this example probably would not make that much of an argument.

Refuting an Argument: Refuting Directly

What does refute mean? After looking it up in a dictionary I learned that the word means “to prove(a person) to be in error”. Which means that refuting an argument is to prove that the argument that the person is making is false or wrong. According to chapter seven of Epstein, it describes three fundamentals to refuting an argument:

• Show that at least one of the premise dubious.
• Show that the argument isn’t valid or strong.
• Show that the conclusion is false.

Here is an example: People that watch TV everyday is ruining their lives. It causes them to become inactive, lazy, and will not get enough exercises. Therefore, people should stop watching TV everyday because it bad.


In this example we can attack the conclusion, by describing that watching TV is not bad because some people watch TV everyday to see the news which helps them with what going around the world. Watching the news helpful because it sometimes shows certain warnings or dangers, traffics, and the weather.This prove that the conclusion is false, which fit in to one of the fundamentals for refuting an argument.

Compound Claims and The Contradictory of a claim

After reading chapter 6, I have learned several of materials that was cover in this chapter. The parts of this chapter that I found amusing the most was about the compound claims and “or” claims and the contradictory of a claims.
Compound claims are pretty much two claims or more combined or linked together into one claim; “viewed as just one claim”. The word “or”, is a specific word that mostly used to combine two claims together to make a compound claim.
Here is an example: Bob will go to school or he will stay at home.
This is one claim that is linked together from two claims. The word “or” helps the two claim to be viewed as one claim.
The contradictory of a claim is pretty much the opposite of the claim that has the truth value of it. Meaning that it is the opposite of a claim that has the same truth value. For instance, the contradictory of an or claim for the previous example would be, Bob won’t go to school and he won’t stay at home.

Inferring and Implying

I found section E in chapter 5 of Epstein to be very amusing. Inferring and Implying is often use almost everyday in everyone lives. It sometime can be confusing because people often get the two of them mixed up. Implying is a statement that is similar to suggesting it leaves a conclusion unsaid. While inferring is when you interpret or decide that the claim is the conclusion.
Here is an example: My cousin came over my house a few days ago and saw my sister singing karaoke. He asked her if she was practicing singing. Although he did not said that she needed practice singing, he was implying to her that her singing was awful.
Here is another example: My brother says, “it was like a bear with white and black furs”. I could infer that my brother was describing or taking about a panda.
Implying and inferring are often used everyday during conversations without us even noticing it.

Advertisement

For section C of chapter 5 in Epstein, it describe how advertisements can sometime be accurate or not. Claims from ads are up to personal experiences and judgment; It up to the person,  whether he or she believe that the advertisement is true or false. They could either chose to accept, reject, or suspend the judgment of the claim. For this post I chose one of my favorites advertisement:Click Here!

 I believe most of you have at least saw this ad once somewhere, so far I have seen this ad on commercials while watching TV, at the movies, and some where on news on the Internet about a few months ago. If it’s your first time seeing this ad, then I am pretty sure that you’ll find confusing, maybe funny, and it probably doesn’t make any sense; which was my experience when I saw this ad for the first time. 

The message of this ad is that by using Old Spice body wash, men will smell good and be able to do all of those things that the man in the ad did; which can led to several misunderstandings. I rejected this claim because beside from smelling great for the ladies, it not really plausible that every men will be able to do all of those things like the man in the ad. However, this is my personal judgment for this ad, other people could have different judgment as well. For instance, if someone used this product and its work him, his judgment for this ad would be different from mine. 

 I believe that this advertisement is well made because it can make people into liking it. By watching this ad many times you will probably start liking this ad as I do. Although the ad can led to confusions and misunderstandings at first, it still attracts people because for the same reason. For instance, by watching this ad more, I found it to be funny and was convinced. Even though I do not believe that the ad is plausible, I still find it convincing. This is probably how the ad get people into buy this product.