precise generalities

The book discusses how there are several values between "one" and "all" and those values are the precise generalities. For example,

65% of students who take tap from Ms. Katie think she is the best teacher they have ever had. Sarah took Ms. Katie's tap class last year. So Sarah thinks Ms. Katie is the best teacher she has ever had.

This is not valid because there is 35% not accounted for. According to the example in the book, with this type of example, we can say that the 35% is the possibility that the premises can be true but the conclusion false, which makes it not a strong argument. If the percentages are low or high on the scale, not in the middle, than the argument becomes stronger. For example, if the percent was less than 10 or greater than 85 than I am assuming that it would be a stronger argument because there is a lesser chance that the conclusion could be false.

claims and contradictories

On page 161, the book gives examples of claims and their contradictories. Specific translations from a claim to its contradictory are good examples to have in our repetoire of knowledge because, especially for myself, after seeing examples, it helpes me create an answer and find it within other contexts.

The book explains how there are words such as "all", and "some" that can drastically change the meaning of a claim. If these words are not used correctly then it could end in a claim meaning the opposite of what it was meant to say.

As far as a personal experience goes, this reminds me of in our math class we worked on truth tables, and the contradictory was, the negation. We would have to translate one sentence into another. I guess this could also occur in many other situations as well. This chapter puts heavy emphasis on how language should be looked at when writing a claim because it could change the meaning. By differentiating between these key words and phrases claims can become stronger and accurately mean what they say. In our common language, we use these words in our every day vinacular and often don't follow the strict rules of when and when not to use them.

usefulness of the course projects

I personally have enjoyed the projects and feel that this is what the last critical thinking course I was taking lacked; it did not teach me how to apply the concepts we learned to everything else. I didn't have to read articles and find fallacies, or claims or test whether or not something was true. The last class I was in basically was venn diagrams and how critical thinking is not meanto to be applied to anything outside the "deductive universe".

Honestly, thats in the past and I could care less about that class, now that I am taking a class I actually understand :)

I think both of these projects have been helpful in my understand of the topics and I enjoy how they force me to apply what we are learning form the text into material that we are going to have to use and that we use on a normal basis. I think the second project has been my favorite. Our group examined the ASPCA, which is an organization that is near and dear to my heart. For those that don't know, the ASPCA is the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty against Animals. I personally enjoyed the topic of choice and think that it is important to be able to identify what we learn in the book to outside sources. I think each of these projects is a stepping stone for the next, though. Like, I am glad we did the article project first before which is so broad in topic and then had to pick something with a more definite focus, like a social organization. With both projects I enjoyed that the topic of choice was up to the group, because it gave us more freedom in choosing what we did, and makes the concepts more relatable when its something we are already familiar with or have an interest in.

I think for me, project 2 was easier when it came to establishing the concepts from the reading, because it was an organization I was very familiar with and knew enough about to where I can combine the information.

Internet Advertisement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0uJvhQkPCQ

Okay, so when looking for an advertisement, I remembered that we were the most vulnerable to advertisin when we were young, and our mind were maleable. I remember watching this commercial over and over when I was a little girl, and repeatedly asked my parents for this toy on my birthday, and when I finally did get it, it wasn't what I expected (so I used real scissors on Barbie and my own hair) Lets just say I wasn't allowed to be alone with scissors for a long time...

Anyway, even though this is an advertisement from 1995 and wasn't used on the internet for advertising purposes, it is still relevant because it was an influencial advertisement in its own way nonetheless. Especially as children, we learn from trial and error. Let's just say I learned a lot. In section B, there is discussion about how there is no specific criteria for accepting or rejecting a claim. The main two strategies for accepting and rejecting a claim are from personal experience and other credible sources. I had to use personal experience with this item to see whether or not it was what I expected. Apparently it wasn't. ince this was something that happened to me as a child, I was able to retaint hat information and use it when my own sister wanted a similar toy.

Comon Mistakes when Evaluating premises

After reading this chapter, I would notice myself making some of these common mistakes. I think that when we speak commonly or when we write casually, sometimes it is easy to bypass these mistakes especially when we are using a more conversational tone.

Here are the 5 common mistakes discussed in the chapter:

*Arguing backwards - this can happen when someone uses the conclusion before the premises. Its kind of like giving the punchline before saying the actual joke and it makes less sense.
*Confusing Possibility with Plausibility - Something that is possible is not necessarily plausible. There needs to be substantial evidence to prove a point.
*Bad appeal to authority - This one is tricky. If the claim is not coming from the authority, than it is less credible and can be misleading because there is an uncertainty for the crediblity of the source it is coming from.
*Mistaking the person for the claim - Just because someone says that a claim is true, doesn't mean it is true. Again, there is an uncertainty about the credibility of the person who is providing the information because you don't know if it is coming from a legitimate source or if it coming from backstage gossip.
*Mistaking the person for the argument - On the flip side, an argument should not be rejcted just because of the person who is saying it. For example, I should not disregeard the claim my friend might be making just because we had a squabble earlier and I refuse to be her friend.

Repairing Arguments

When given an argument that doesn't make sense, the book suggests adding premises or a conclusion if the already bad argument can meet the following three criterium...
*The argument becomes strnger or valid
*The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person
*The premise is more plausible than the conclusion

Lets take a look at this example...

You shouldn't watch tv that much because then you won't get any homework done.

I think this conclusion is set and in order to be supported, needs to have a premise like "television can become distracting and can be a distraction from completeing homework." Then the conclusion should be rewritten as "Television is distracting and something distracting can keep you preoccupied from accomplishing a chore, homework, or any other kind of obligation." By adding this premise and changing the conclusion, the argument becomes stronger and can now be supported by other evidence such as maybe the subject has been distracted before by television and has not done their homework. Thw rewritten conclusion can now be supported by evidence compared t the previous conclusion.

Here is the rewritten argument.

Television can be a distraction from other priorities such as homework. It is advised not to watch television at the same time as doing homework because doing both at the same time can prolong getting obligations done.

This argument is stronger than the original, and is more valid because it can be substantiated.