Exercise #2

I decided to look at exercise #2 for this activity because I think it is easily relatable to my lifestyle (because not only am I notorious for running 5 minutes late, but like to stop for food along the way) So, I am still kind of sketchy on this concept but I am going to give it a shot so…here it goes!

Exercise #2 says…

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

Argument? = I would say this is an argument.

Conclusion? = #4 “So I might as well stop and get breakfast.”

Additional premises needed? = This is where I began to be confused…I know that all of these fallacies tie into the central idea of the argument, and I think any extra premises might make the argument less relevant. If anything, maybe more details to the existing premises. The only premises that I see as valuable in this argument are the 3^rd and 4^th.

Identify any sub arguments? = #1, and #2 support #3, which makes them the sub arguments.

Good argument? = I am not sure if this is a good argument, because if the conclusion is about going to get breakfast, then I don’t see how relatable it is to the first three arguments.

I think this argument did help me a bit but I do still not completely understand the concept. I still get confused on identifying the different parts of the argument, but I think that this exercise did help me for the moment to help me understand. I think the exercise was hard for me because I couldn’t relate it back to the sample question. I had difficulty on certain parts but I think I gave it the best shot I had and hopefully it made some sense.

Bad Apple to Common Belief

I enjoyed looking at this fallacy the most and I think this is the one that made the most sense to me. Fallacies are commonly used and we often don't know that we use them until after the fact. The Bad Apploe to Common Belief fallacy is when a group of people believe something to be true then it must be true. I think this is the most common fallacy that I see on a regular basis because it is easy to fall into the trap that if someone says something that it must be true.

For example, when I started working, I had many of my new coworkers telling me not to let the parents control my decisions, and to send kids outside if they weren't behaving, etc. I believed most of what they said, but came to learn that not everything was 100% true. I believed it was true because I didn't know any better, and you never know until you try. For me, it was a matter of trial and error until I became comfortable with who I was as an instructor. Now, I know not to fall into this fallacy because it doesn't matter what anyone else says because I know I am a good instructor. How do I know? My kids are always smiling, and they have a blast! :)

It is easy to believe what other people say when they are in the same group as you, or have similar beliefs. If you have someone you know say that something is true, you might be inclined to believe it because they have similar beliefs as you.

Technology!

The topic I chose to look at is in Chapter 4 of the Essential Guide to Communication, and examines all of the different forms of technology we have at our fingertips! There are several types of technology that book specifies are pagers, telephones, teleconferencing, e-mail, and internet. Technology is an essential form of communication when a face to face connection is unavailable. It is important to keep up with the rapidly expanding use of technology because there become more opportunities for the business to expand when communication restrictions are lifted. The book specifies 2 problems with advancing technology and communication, although I would argue that understanding the advancement of technology is essential to any type of profession and makes an individual more marketable. The book states that the 2 challenges are understanding the “advancement and implementation” of the technologies within an organization, and learning to “use the available technology to enhance communication skills.

I think that technology opens up so many opportunities for the working individual whether they are computer science, nursing, teaching or even performance. I think that at least the basic knowledge of skills such as telephones, internet and e-mail; which are three of the most common tools used by virtually any and everyone. The only negative I see is the lack of personal face to face communication, but in these difficult times where schedules are insane to manage, and several commitments take us in directions other than communicating with one another via personal contact, I think that using technology to communicate is a pleasant alternative.

*Pagers – Pagers used to just beep to let the person know that they needed to call someone, or to inform them that they were trying to be reached. Both of my parents used to carry pagers, but no longer find the need for them (since they have cell phones and would prefer to not carry around a lot of technology) The pager alerts the owner with a message, or a telephone number on its display screen. It is compact and can be kept on a belt loop or in a pocket for safe keeping.

*Telephones – This is pretty self-explanatory. I mean, we have all used this before and know what the phone does. Telephones allow us to communicate with someone , but it also has growing features that makes communication extremely easy and within the palm of our hand.

*Teleconferencing – allows people to create a meeting over the phone with more than just one party.

*E-mail – we know what e-mail does. We can send documents to more than just one person, have a conversation, and extend a conversation to more than just one person at a time.

*Internet – Well, without the internet, this class wouldn’t be happening! J Internet allows us to have virtually almost any information at the tips of our fingers just by typing o the keyboard, and looking through the world wide web.

Testing an Argument...

Well, the book specifies 3 tests to make an argument good which consist of the following:

*The premises are plausible
*The premises are more plausible that the conclusion
*The arguments is valid or strong.

Each of these tets are "independent" which means that they don't all rely on each other. One can be right and the others don't necessarily have to be right as well. So when first examining an argument, it is important to see which on of these questions is the easiest to answer first.

Here is my example...

In order to ride the bus, you have to have a valid pass.
Mark has a valid pass
Mark can ride the bus

Now to answer the questions...

The premises are valid because you can't ride the bus without a pass (unless you want to get arrested) and Mark clearly has a valid pass for the day which means he can ride the bus. The premises are true, which means that they are plausible.
In this case, I think the premises are more plausible than the conclusion. The premises have more credibility than the conclusion, even though the conclusion is credible.
The argument is also strong because both premises are true. The argument is also valid because it is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

Strong and Valid Arguments

A Valid Argument is true and a Strong Argument doesn't necessarily have to be true, but has to have substantiated evidence to convince the audience. The book specifies how important it is to have a strong argument versus one that is valid because having s atrong argument can persuade an audience because it is less doubtful. A strong argument displays confidence in a subject and is key to reassure the audience on your topic. A valid argument may be true but not necessarily convincing. Types of syntax and use of language can lessen the strength in an argument. A valid argument may be true, but if I use casual language than the agument loses its strength, or simple words like "maybe", "most-likely", "sort of", etc can lessen the strength of an argument.

Valid Argument: The news said that there are delays on BART so I might be late to my appointment today if I take BART into the city.

**This is valid because the information provided is correct.

Strong Argument: The news said that there are delays on BART so I will be late to my appointment today if I take BART into the city.

**The difference between these 2 arguments is the use of the words "I will" and "might". The second argument is more convincing whereas the first gives some doubt. It doesn't matter whether I am late, but it is more important to look at the more convincing argument.

Types of Arguments

The book Essential Guide to Group Communication identifies 4 different types of arguments:

*Authoritarian
*Consultative
*Participative
*Laissez - Faire

Authoritarian leadership is when there is one leader that designates themself or is designated by others, and assumes all control of the group. The leader usually makes most decisions without permission or with the assistance of the other members of the group. This type of leadership takes away from the idea of working in a group. Its like one actor trying to stand in the spotlight and forgetting that there is an ensemble of players to work with. I am sure we have all experienced this kind of leadership and it usually means that work gets done, but the group is unsatisfied. I have worked in a few groups before where someone designates themself as a leader and divides the work, giving most to the other members and less to themself. Our group wasn't very happy with our final project.

Consultative leadership is one of the most common. Consultative leadership is when the decisions of the group are based on the opinions and decisions of the group as a whole. Leaders will usually rely on the opinion of the group when they are lacking the information to make an informative decision on their own. I personally like this style of leadership, as a leader I like to know where my group stands and what their opinions are because I am indecisive and I prefer to know what they think. I like hearing what other have to say but it is ultimately the decision of the leader.

Participative leadership involves the leader working with the group members to achieve a goal. For example, if your goal was to clean the closet, the leader designating work would be more useful to the group by getting down on their hands and knees and scrubbing the floor or cleaning like everybody else. The most efficient way to get things done would be for the leader to participate instead of sit on the sidelines.

Laissez-Faire in french means "hands off". Laissez Faire leadership is when the leader is not involved or has little direct leadership. This is the worst kind of leadership ever, because when the leader is not involved, there is little direction, and the group members have to rely more on each other to accomplish a goal while the leader is just along for the ride.

Indepedence in Groups

This chapter from the book "Essential Guide to Group Communication" was interesting to me becaise it really made me think about how I work in groups and habits that I need to change.

According to the reading, it is important for every person to have their own role and work together as a team. If there is one person who is not on the same page, the entire group can suffer from lack of teamwork. The common saying "There is no 'I' in TEAM" comes into play, because its important for the group members to work together and focus less on the individual and more ont he success of the ensemble. For me, I think of this as an ensemble. In theatre, one individual actor cannot hog the spotlight during a scene, or no one person is meant to steal the show away from the entire production, bcause not only does it take away from the aesthetic of the production, but it is distracting to the audience and disrespectful to your other cast members. When the ensemble works cohesively together, then it makes the production process easier.

Som translating that back into critical thinkers lingo, in a group project/presentation, there can't be just one person who takes over and does more or less than the others. We all need to work together to achieve one goal, and if someone does not do their adequate share than the entire group suffers. If everyone stays on task and does their share of work, then a sucessful outcome is more obtainable.

Objective vs Subjective

So, these can be easily compatible, so I will try not to get them confused...(It makes sense in my head, but explaining it is not as easy).

In my every day life, as a performer, it is important to be more objective with ourselves. For example, going into an audition, I have to be able to give an objective opinion about myself. If a casting director says to me "We are only looking for women who can do a triple pirouette" and I don't have my triple, then in order to be onjective, I have to say that I don't have my triple, and maybe I'm still only working on a single. I can't say to the casting director "Triple pirouette? Hah! How about a quadruple!" because I would be giving false information, and I would be thinking too much of myself, when I am not ready for that kind of challenge.

Objective is factual versus Subjective is more opinionated and based off of what we think.

A subjective analysis of myself as a performer would be "I can do my triple pirouette just like that ballerina in the front row, because I am just as driven and motivated." This is subjective because I am jumping the gun and trying to do a higher skill before I mastered a lower skill, and my claim is opinionated. I don't know if I can do my turn like that ballerina, but I "believe" I can, which means I can.

An objective claim about myself would be "If I practice and master my single, then I can eventually nail my triple like that ballerina in the front row." This is an objective claim because practicing a lower skill will lead to eventual mastery of a higher skill, and my aspirations are more realistic.

I hope all of this dance talk made some kind of sense :) Let me know if anyone would like some clarification.

~Theresa

Being Vague and Ambiguous...

Now, I commit these two "critical thinking sins" constantly in my papers (or at least my high school English teacher used to always say that).

As far as being ambiguous goes, I look at ambiguous as trying to examine a certain topic that doesn't necessarily have one appropriate answer or solution. In my high school honors English class 2 years ago, we would often discuss in our socratic seminars about how some of our readings were often ambiguous and didn't have one specific answer. I recall reading this one short story in an anthology by author Bessie Head, and there was an entire class debate over a characters motivation for wanting to murder her husband. There were several ideas that all correlated with one another but none of them pointed specifically to one definite answer. We at one point had about 5 different opinions and 5 different scenarios, and all of them were equally possible. I personally enjoy the use of ambiguity because it gives a certain level of freedom to the reader/critical thinker for interpretation. In certain circumstances ambiguity is not good, because if you are searching for a specific answer, its not as easy to decipher.

I think in casual conversation we can all be vague. Being vague is like trying to act out a contentless scene; there is nothing to work with! In acting, we use contenless scenes to help build some improvisational skills as well as to introduce the new actor to the stage. A contentless scene contains lines that are very vague and the actors can build whatever scenes they wish based on the lines given, and each can be completely different and it is based completely on interpretation.