Week 13 Discussion: Post 3

3). Pick one concept from throughout the semester that you feel can use further discussion.

            I think that a lot of the concepts in the Small Groups Text were very helpful when trying to work with a group. I feel like the hardest part of this class was trying to work with a group and the concepts taught in this book were actually very helpful. One concept that I would like to further discuss is effective leadership. I think that effective leadership was very important when it came to group work within this class. I remember blogging about this in post earlier in the semester, I wrote “[effective leaders] themselves as leaders want to succeed, as well as want their group to succeed, so they motivate their group members to work harder. When the leader displays hard work that leads to success, the group members are influenced to achieve just as their leader. It is sort of like the phrase “lead by example””. I still think this is true. Working with our group we definitely played our roles and I feel like there was distinct leader in our group and without this group member we wouldn’t have gotten our assignment done in time. 

Week 13 Discussion: Post 2

2). What was your favorite thing about the class?  What was your least favorite thing about the class?  How can this class be improved?  Again, be specific.

            My favorite thing about this class was the freedom to choose when you wanted to do the work. At the beginning of the semester, I chose to take this class online since it did not fit my schedule at all. Being that the class was online I was able to do most of my assignments in between classes and sometimes during work which made it very convenient for me. I liked that I was able to work at my own pace. My least favorite thing about this class was all of the group projects. I found that these were very inconvenient especially with my busy schedule. I felt that it was really hard to get 5 people with 5 different schedules together. I found myself stressing over not being able to meet with my group instead of not being able to do the work. The reason why I didn’t take the class in person was because I couldn’t take the time out of my schedule to do the work and group projects sort of defeated the purpose of an online class. 

Week 13 Discussion: Post 1

1). What have you learned in this class over the course of the semester?  Be specific.

            To be honest, when I first enrolled into this class, I didn’t even know what I was going to be learning in this class. I had no idea what “Critical Thinking” entailed, but throughout the semester I was able to define some of the main concepts. The main concepts learned in this class to me were claims and arguments. After learning the general concepts of what claims and arguments were, I was able to decipher if the argument or claim was not strong, too vague or even to believe if their argument was a reliable source. I think my favorite thing that I learned in this class was learning about apple-polishing or any of the posts where we were able to describe the fallacies of advertisements. Being able to connect what we blog about to what we see in the everyday world actually made me feel that I really understood the concept. Instead of making up my own examples, I was able to look onto the web and find ads that would pop up and use what I learned about appeal to emotion or apple-polishing to judge the ad. Overall, I learned a lot more about what I felt that I already knew about critical thinking. 

Week 12 Discussion: Post 3

 Tracing the cause backwards

                   In chapter 15 of the Epstein book, I liked the section regarding “Tracing the cause backwards”. I found it easy to ready and very entertaining with the illustrations. As described in the book, you only trace back to the first step. If you go further back it “it becomes too hard to fill in the normal conditions”. If you go too far back it makes it unobvious to what actually caused something.

Example: Not studying cause Jane to fail her test.

                     Jane didn’t study since she was tired. Being tried caused Jane to fail her test.

                     Jane was tired because she worked all day. Work caused Jane to fail her test.

                     Jane worked all day because she needed to pay her bills. Bills caused Jane to fail her test.

Jane had to pay her bills since she is she has responsibilities. Responsibilities caused Jane to fail her test.

With this example we could go on forever. Each different cause created the same effect, so it is best to stop at the first step. 

Week 12 Discussion: Post 2

Mission Critical website

                  The Mission Critical website was really useful! I wish I knew about this website when we first started the class! I liked that it had an outline of links for different types of arguments and fallacies. It was easy to locate a subject and then read about it. I thought each link was very useful to reinforcing the subjects we already learned and helped me understand some of the subjects that I didn’t really comprehend. I also like that it was interactive. Most of the links had exercises that directly told you the answers to the questions. If the answer was correct it showed why it was correct. If it was incorrect it described why you were incorrect. I found that very useful because most of these concepts are not hard but tricky. The explanations of why they are wrong are really helpful especially since this an online class and there’s not someone else to refer to. 

Week 12 Discussion: Post 1

Cause and Effect Website

                  On the Cause and effect website, the main lesson taught was casual arguments. A casual argument is the relationship between events that cause another but only having “one significant difference”. I liked the example about a how lawyers would approach the situation, it really showed different perspectives and showed the significant differences of the cause of the accident and the the outcome of the accident. With this example it showed how lawyers reason to get a logical outcome. The website also outlines the strengths of a casual argument and what they rely on. They are “how acceptable or demonstrate able the implied comparison is”, “how likely the causation seems to be”, and how credible the claims are. The strengths listed helped me understand how to determine the actual cause and effect. What I liked most about this website was that they outlines things well. All the main points were pointed out in bold and were easy to follow. Though it was outlined well, I found it very unpleasant with the lengthy paragraphs; it felt intimidating reading this especially when you’re tired L. Overall it was a useful website. 

Week 11 Discussion: Post 3

Judging Analogies

In chapter 12, Epstein writes about judging analogies. To judge a vague analogy, you must study the similarities of the analogies then identify the important ones to conclude a general principle that applies to both sides.

Example: Michael Phelps is a competitive swimmer and swims for the US Swim team. In 2009, Michael Phelps was on off-season and was photographed using a bong to smoke what was reported tobacco or marijuana.  Due to the photograph, he was suspended from the US Swim team. Swimmers should be kicked off the team for their use of illegal drugs.

The general principle of the use of illegal drugs applies both sides of the analogies: the possession of drugs for an off-season swimmer and the possession of drugs on a swimmer on the US swim team. Since the possession of illegal drugs has the same consequence to people on a swim team and people off a swim 

Week 11 Discussion: Post 2

Reasoning by Criteria

Many of these types of reasoning were hard to understand because there weren’t definition and examples in the book to help clarify the type of reasoning. For me, I thought that reasoning by criteria was the hardest to understand. Reasoning by criteria is knowing the best outcome by understanding the criteria that the outcome will be based on. From my previous post I used the example, “Taking a class early in the morning would be difficult to keep awake in, how about you take a class in the afternoon?”.  The outcome is taking an afternoon class. The criteria to take a afternoon class would be that morning classes are too early to keep awake in. Another example is “That blouse fits loose on you, you should really try a smaller size to ensure that the blouse fits nicely.” The outcome is trying a smaller size, while the criteria is that the blouse is loose. I found that the changing minds webpage had a reasonable explanation of the subject but links at the bottom where it said “see also” really helped into making this subject clear to me. When I read the similar reasoning types to reasoning by criteria it made it easier for me to grasp the concept. 

Week 11 Discussion: Post 1

Reasoning Examples

1). Reasoning by Analogy: A comparison where one side draws a conclusion and the other concludes the same conclusion.

Ex. Getting a degree increases the chance of getting a job with a higher salary. If all students graduate with a degree, then they will have higher salaries.

                 

2). Sign Reasoning: When two or more things are closely related to each other and significantly changes the relationship if one is in absence.

                  Ex. “Where’s the fire, there’s the smoke”

3). Causal Reasoning: The reasoning that describes the reasoning between the cause and effect of an event.

Ex. The boy drives in his car down the road. The boy is under the influence of alchohol. The boy crashes into a tree.

*The relationship between the boy driving down the road and crashing into the tree is caused by drunk driving.

                 

4). Reasoning by Criteria: identifying the criteria that the outcome will be based on, then identifying the decision based on the criteria.

Ex. Taking a class early in the morning would be difficult to keep awake in, how about you take a class in the afternoon?

5). Reasoning by Example: The use of examples in an argument.

Ex. You should really buy that lace top. I get many compliments when I wear that lace top. I think it would look great on you too. 

6). Inductive Reasoning: Reasoning from general previous observations.

Ex. The weather starts to get warmer beginning in the month of June. Tomorrow is the first day of June, the weather will be warmer.

7). Deductive:  An argument when the conclusion must be true when the premises are true.

Ex. All SJSU students must take 2 PE courses to graduate. Joe is an SJSU student so he must take 2 PE courses to graduate.  

Week 10 Discussion: Post 3

Apple Polishing

Apple Polishing is an appeal to vanity. Appeal to vanity is defined by making someone do something by allowing them an opportunity to make him or her feel better about herself or himself. It is basically appealing to the pride or self esteem of a person. When that is reached, the favor would be done because it makes the person look good or feel better about themselves by doing it. Apple polishing is often times used by advertisements, especially when selling products. 

The advertisement above is for Pantene. It states “Pantene that’s healthy looking hair”. Their motive is to gain buyers by promoting healthy looking hair. By saying “look at Kelly’s hair, don’t you want good looking hair like her too?” they are using an unsaid premise to make you think about what their product will acutally do to you. The apple polishing technique used by Pantene gains people by convincing them that having healthy looking great hair will make them feel good about themselves. 

Week 10 Discussion: Post 2

This ad was used to display that smoking is bad for you by appeal to fear. It describes appeal to fear by using the quote “Smoking. Pleasure for you. Poison for your family”. The part “poison for your family” was used to scare the smoker that you are not only hurting yourself but POISONING your harmless family as well. The strategic move of having the innocent young child pose as the cigarette shows that second hand smoke can harm your family or anyone around you. I also found another advertisement against smoking that I found really powerful. It states on the ad “No killing area” then states “Thank you for not giving us cancer”. It uses the appeal to fear by invoking fear to those who smoke, stating that they are killing people, themselves and others when they smoke. I think that if this sign was posted instead of the regular no smoking signs it would scare more people from smoking in public, as well as make them feel ashamed. 

Week 10 Discussion: Post 1

Appeal to Emotion

Appeal to emotion is an argument that strikes to believe something because you feel a certain way. There are may different aspects of Appeal to Emotion including appeal to pity, appeal to fear, appeal to spite, and a feel good argument. One appeal to emotion aspect that strikes you is the appeal to spite. Appeal to spite is happens when someone feels against something or doesn’t do something out of spite. It is used in hopes of revenge or to get on even grounds with someone who has rejected the other person in another situation.

Example

            Mom: Share your chips with your sister.

            Daughter: Why should I share with her mom? She never shares anything with me!

In this example, the daughter conducts her argument out of spite since her sister never shares with her. Her argument is invalid and her judgment was made to basically get even with her sister. 

Week 9 Discussion: Post 2

Usefulness of major course assignments

I think the skills that we were supposed to retain from our first and second course assignment was learning to work as a group. Having students in an online class have to meet up work together on a paper is probably the hardest thing for someone to fit in their schedule. I would imagine that the reason why people would take this class online was because the class times wouldn’t fit into their schedules and that this option would be more convenient to them. I found that meeting with the group was very hard and inconvenient. Being that we are an online class it was kind of awkward first meeting because we don’t see these people face to face and it seemed like when we did meet it was strictly business. When doing evaluations for the group paper I found that I was referring back to the roles and duties of group members described in “The Essential Guide to Group Communication”. I gained skills on how to be an effective group member as well as a little bit of a leadership role.  

Week 9 Discussion: Post 3

Precise Generalities

Precise generalities are defined by using a number or percentage to make a claim or argument valid.

Example: 70% of children like to play outside. John is a child therefore he likes to play outside.

* In this example, the claim is not valid. There is a 30% possibility that John does not like to play outside since it is only stated that 70% of children like to play outside.

To make a claim or argument strong, you have to use a very high or very low percentage.

Example: 98% of Students at San Jose State University think school should be free.

*Using 98% eliminates the 2% of students that think school should be free sine the percentage is so small. With such a high percentage, the claim is viewed as strong and valid.

Example: 2% of students at San Jose State University think that school should be paid for.

*2% compared to 98% is a very small percentage. Using the numbers provided we can conclude that 98% of students think school should be free. 

Week 9 Discussion: Post 1

General Claims

General claims were the main topic of Chapter 8 of Critical Thinking by Richard Epistein. One of the main ideas supported in this section was defining claims using the key terms all, some, no, and only.

ALL: means every single one, with no expectations

                  Ex. All Asians are good at math.

·       This claim is not a strong or valid. In this claim ALL applies that every Asian is good at math. I am asian…but I’m not very good at math.

SOME: implies to at least one, but not all

                  Ex. Some boys like the color pink.

·       In this claim, the subject is implied that SOME boys like pink but only some. Some only has to include one person but not all.

NO: none, not even one.

                  Ex. No one likes vegetables.

·       Nobody implies NOT ANY at all, not even one single person.

ONLY: means only this and that not anything else.

                  Ex. Only associates are allowed to be in the break room.

                  * The word only implies that nobody but the associates are allowed in the break room. 

Week 7 Discussion: Post 3

Reasoning in a chain

                  One subject that I found interesting was reasoning in a chain. I often times reason in a chain with my boyfriend. Just this past weekend I reasoned in a chain with him so that we could both do what we wanted to do. So I told him that I would come visit him if he would take me to a movie. Then he reasoned that if he took me to a movie then we would have to get dinner after. Then I reasoned that that if we went to dinner then he would have to treat me. So in conclusion, if I come to visit him he would have to take me to dinner and a movie. All of the premises were conditional and depended on the claim before. Reasoning in chain requires steps. For my example, I broke it down into steps:

If I come to visit him (A), then he would have to take me to a movie(B).

If he takes me to a movie (B), then we would have to get dinner after (C).

If we go get dinner (C), then he would have to treat me (D).

If A a is true then we can conclude that D will happen. They are all conditional steps. 

Week 7 Discussion: Post 2

Counterarguments

                  Raising objections is common when people state arguments. By raising an objection you are finding ways to make an argument bad.  It is everyday reasoning by calling to question of an argument. For example if you have the argument, “Everyone should get a dog. Dogs are way more fun than cats. They can even do tricks too”, you question why are dogs better than cats and can’t cats do tricks too? Since most of the claims are subjective or false, you can say the argument is invalid and bad. There was also a big section in chapter 7 about refuting an argument. You can refute and argument in 2 ways, directly and indirectly. To directly refute and argument you can prove that at least on of the premises is dubious, invalid or weak, or prove that the conclusion is false. To indirectly refute and argument, you must find a way to prove that one of the premises are false. For example, when you use the argument above, you know that the premise “dogs are more fun than cats” is something that is completely based on personal preference. That premise raises a question on if the argument is bad or good. 

Week 7 Discussion: Post 1

Compound Claims

Chapter 6 was bout compound claims. A compound claim is a claim made up of other claims but is viewed as one claim.  For example, if I said, “We could make dinner or I’ll buy you dinner” there are two claims in the statement but it is still views as one claim. Compound claims have several different components. One component is false dilemmas. False dilemmas occur when people exclude the possibilities for the “or” claim to be false. When I was in high school, my best friend was in a very bad situation selling drugs. I was so fed up in his lifestyle that he said he “had” to do and I felt that the only way to guide him into the right direction was by giving him an ultimatum. I told him, “You could quit selling drugs or we could stop being friends.” This was a false dilemma. By giving him a bad argument, his options to making the right decisions were reduced since I didn’t give him a list of possibilities. Another component to look out for when evaluating compound claims are conditionals. Conditional claims are basically if-then statements. For example, Jake’s mom said if he cleans his room, then he will be able to go outside with his friends. The statement is conditional because if he does not clean his room to his mother’s standards then she is not obligated to let him play outside. Conditional claims are very common and are easy to depict in any situation. 

Week 6 Discussion: Post 3

Repairing Arguments

Argument: Jake eats a lot of candy. His teeth are going to rot.

Analysis: Rotting teeth is the conclusion to Jake eating lots of candy. In this argument, we cant conclude that just because Jake eats a lot of candy that his teeth are going to rot. There are other factors that lead to rotting teeth besides candy. Things such as not brushing or flossing your teeth lead to rotting teeth. An ordinary person would believe this argument since many people don’t know the real facts about tooth decay. As an intern to a dentist, I can personally tell you that candy is not the only thing that contributes to rotten teeth. To repair this argument we could add more detail to the premise by saying, “ Jake eats a lot of candy and never brushes or flosses his teeth”. Adding that simple detail makes the argument stronger and the conclusion more valid. Since he doesn’t brush of floss his teeth, his teeth are going to rot without a question. 

Week 6 Discussion: Post 2

In the Chapter 4 of the Epstien book, there is a topic about inferring and implying. Implying is when you leave a conclusion unsaid, while inferring is the case where the person believes the claim/conclusion. For example, last week I was really sick to the point where I stayed inside all day long. My mom comes inside the house after she walked the dog taking off her hat, sunglasses, and flip flops. I inferred that it was hot or a nice day outside because of the attire she was wearing. I can also conclude it was a nice day since she went to take the dog out for a walk. Her outfit also implied that it is nice outside since she didn’t have to wear a sweater or a scarf or anything heavy to keep warm. My argument “it must be a nice day outside” is valid from my person experience. My mom’s outfit implies as well as inferred that it was a nice day outside. By inferring and implying, we are leaving the people at the end of message to comprehend what we are trying to say without actually saying it. For example, if a teacher says, “The people who score best on the test take notes during lecture” students can infer that if they take notes during lecture they will get a good grade on their test.