Project #2

I found that the second project was much better than the first project. I say this because I liked how we had to analyze an organization (popular or not), and then use what we have been learning and apply it to real life. I thought it was interesting how each site had at least a fallacy or some type of reasoning being used on the site. It is funny how sites use these tools willingly and acknowledgeable. Also it was interesting to see how each type of technique was used by each company. Many companies seemed to use pathos (the emotional appeal) to draw in their audiences. Also it was interesting to see that the companies used these things in their own documents (which some were sent into the government). All in all I enjoyed doing this research project more than the first one because of the reasons mentioned above.

General Claims and their Contradictories

In the section on general claims and their contradictories, I found that the outline given in the book helped me to come up with contradictories more easily. The outline is simple and easy to use because all you need is your claim and then two possible contradictories. Depending on what your claim is, you can have up to two contradictories for it.

For example, Dick can run fast. The contradictory to Dick can run fast is that Dick can sometimes run fast or Dick is not very fast. Another example is sometimes Dick can run fast, the contradictory for sometimes Dick can run fast is Dick cannot run fast. Sometimes people get their contradictories mixed up, which is why the outline is the book is given. The outline is only a “rough guide” but it can at least get you started on your way to a good claim and its contradictory.

Some Valid and Invalid Forms

I found that the section about some valid and invalid forms of argument was very interesting. The section discussed the direct way of reasoning with all (All S are P, a is S, so a is P.), arguing backwards with all (All S are P, a is P, So a is S.), and a couple others. It helped me to see even more how wee use diagrams to make things even more clear than we originally plan to make them. Also this section helped me realize that if you truly have trouble figuring out if the argument is valid or invalid you can always draw a diagram, but the diagram might be tricky if you do not know how to properly draw one. This section made setting up a diagram easy by giving guidelines. The guidelines on checking for validity with diagrams made it easy because it gave useful tips on what should go in the bubbles/boxes, what each one needed to have in it, and where it should be placed (overlapping, next to each other, etc.). From personal experience, if I cannot understand something or have trouble deciding whether something is valid or not, I found drawing the diagram helps tremendously. I remember using one to help me narrow down what colleges I wanted to look at and which ones were right for me.

Advertising

The advertisement I found was for a Coca-Cola ad. It is a vintage ad with a couple as the center of attention. The background is a soft pink, with hearts and swirls floating around the couple. This picture is coming out of the Coca-Cola bottle held by a hand with no body or face attached to it. The claim being brought forward by Coca-Cola is that if you drink Coca-Cola then you will find love, or if you're already drinking it then your love will mean more and be better than before. According to Epstein in chapter five section a, there are three choices a person can make about whether to believe a claim or not. Those three choices are:
1)Accept the claim is true.
2)Reject the claim.
3)Suspend judgement.

Now I could chose one right now but after further reading in Epstein's book, there are more criteria for using these three options. Epstein states that “there are no absolute rules for when to accept, when to reject, and when to suspend judgment about a claim” (84). Although there are no rules, Epstein gives the reader guidelines to making a better judgment. A person can use personal experience, can accept a claim made by someone we know and trust who is an authority on this kind of claim, can accept a claim made by a reputable authority whom we can trust as an expert on this kind of claim and who has no motive to mislead, can accept a claim in a reputable journal or reference source, and one can accept a claim in a media outlet that's usually reliable.

Since I have personal experience drinking Coca-Cola, I will use my own experience to determine whether or not to believe this ad. I have drank Coca-Cola when I have been in a relationship and when I have not been in a relationship. In both cases the claim that Coca-Cola makes is not true because it did not make my love life better and it did not find me love. Therefore I choose not to believe the claim that Coca-Cola is saying by printing this ad.

Here is the link to view the picture. I found it on google images so just type in coca-cola ads if you cannot see it, the picture is within the first couple pages.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/2803757869_7f235e6d54.jpg

The Principle of Rational Discussion

The Principle of Rational Discussion was one thing that really interested me in the readings. I found it interesting how that there were even principles of rational discussion. There are three principles that one assumes when having a rational discussion. These three principles are:

1. Knows about the subject under discussion.
2. Is able and willing to reason well.
3. Is not lying.

Under condition number one, if a person has no idea about the subject, then there is no basis for arguing. Arguing would be useless because possibly only one person would know about the subject at hand and therefor could tell if the other person did not know anything.

Under condition number two, sometimes a person intentionally has no intent to reason well or sometimes the person is not even able to because they lack information of the subject or some other reason. This ties back with condition number one because if they person is unable to reason well then it could be due to condition number one.

Under condition number three, if a person continues to lie throughout the discussion then there is no point in reasoning with that person unless it is to catch them up in the lie.

Repairing An Argument

Repairing Arguments has three guidelines one should follow in order to make an argument better. The guidelines are as follows:

1.The argument becomes stronger or valid.
2.The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.
3. The premise is more plausible then the conclusion.

Example:
Many foods contain artificial and natural sugars, making it bad for the human body to consume mass quantities of sugar. People die from diabetes every year.

In order to fix this argument all that is needed is to add a premise that is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person. By saying that people with diabetes have to watch their sugar levels so it is not a good idea to have them eat mass quantities of sugar all the time. This premise would connect the argument to the conclusion, therefore repairing the argument and making it a better argument than before.