Chapter 15

Something I found very helpful in chapter 15 was tracing the cause backwards This helped me because the example the book used about the dog and raccoon could apply to many things in everyday life. You have to go back and figure out what the real cause is and not just assume it was because of something you have no evidence of. You have to trace the argument back completely to really get the cause of the argument. But this can get a little overwhelming because you can trace it back so far that in the end you don’t understand the normal conditions. This helped me not get to technical when thinking of an argument because when you do it gets so confusing and you can get mixed up with who did what at a certain time and the argument may come to a conclusion but it might not be just.

Mission Critical

I really liked how the website was put together and very easy to find the answers I was looking for and broke it down into specific parts and types of arguments. The part of the website I thought was most useful was the fallacies and non-rational persuasion because there are so many different types of fallacies and types or reasoning it is impossible to remember them all. The website does a really good job of explaining each type of fallacy and categorizes them into emotional and misdirected which I really liked. I also liked how truth, validity and sound were explained because I always had trouble differentiating the three. Validity is when the form of the argument has the premise and the conclusion in the proper relationship. Truth is the next step to when if the argument is valid we have to make sure there is truth in it. Lastly, the argument is sound if it can not be in any way false. Having it stated in such a simple way and in this order really helped me understand it.

Cause and Effect Website

The aspect of this website I found most useful is the way they explained the use of inductive reasoning in a real life example. Situations like these happen everyday and it is good to know that inductive reason can be used to solve them and make both sides of the argument more clear. I liked how both sides of the story were presented and you could see how the bicyclist moved out of the way because the truck was illegally parked and how the car slammed on his breaks because the bicyclist was in front of him. I also liked how they explained how the fallacies worked into inductive reasoning. An example is the post hoc fallacy where A must occur right before B. Therefore the car could not have slammed on its brakes on Tuesday and get hit on Thursday. The check points at the bottom of the website also helped me because it Is and easy checklist to see if the argument is strong or not by if the event is reasonable, the source is reliable and can be demonsrated.

Chapter 12 Reasoning by criteria

. Reasoning by criteria was the most difficult for me to understand because I did not see what was the problem with the argument. I think it was difficult for me to understand because my roommates and I do this all the time. Thinking about it this way helped me understand it as well because sometimes this annoys me when we bring things home without discussing it first because something general such and a rug, curtains, chairs and tables can be in many different designs and may not be what is wanted. When it was explained to me this way it made more sense. It is stating something that is too general to just pick because there are so many options. The criteria you have to reason with is not very much so this makes for a bad argument with little evidence to back up the conclusion.

Chapter 12 Reasoning

1). Reasoning by Analogy: Saying we can just be friends is like my mom saying my dog died and I can still keep it. This is a comparison between two situations but it is not meant to be a good argument. These things are similar and have a similar emotionally outcome but are not related enough to have a good argument.
2). Sign Reasoning: Where there is a sorority house there is a party. This is using signing because it is group two things together that you automatically think of but it is not good for an argument because you can not reverse it. This could be true but then if you reverse it you could have a party without a sorority house.
3). Causal Reasoning- Joe’s work ethic makes Maria want to send him home early, Maria sending Joe home early makes his work ethic worse. This is causal reasoning because one thing causes another and it just ends up in a never ending circle.
4). Reasoning by Criteria- My roommate wants a new couch so I will just buy this futon. This is when something is decided before it is discussed.
5). Reasoning by Example- If you want to wake up in the morning you should have Starbucks coffee. I have a cup every morning and it gets me through the day. This is where you back up your reasoning with an example.
6). Inductive- All the boys in my class are dumb therefore all boys are dumb. This is when you argue from general to specific.
7). Deductive – All dogs like to run, Jimmy is a dog so Jimmy likes to run. This is arguing from specific to general.

Chapter 10

Another topic in chapter ten that really interested me was a feel good argument, which is an argument that make you want to feel good about yourself. This argument has a missing premise and doesn’t give you a reason to believe her argument is true it just make you feel good about yourself. An example is “Coach you should play me as quarterback because you are such an amazing coach and make the perfect plays and want to win the game.” This makes the coach feel good but does not give a reason to make this person quarterback. This is done a lot in today’s world an many people refer to it as apple polishing or sucking up. I have seen a lot of people get what they want by using this fallacy and it is a shame that some people don’t realize it is a bad argument and don’t need evidence to back it up.

Appeal to fear ad

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&noj=1&tbm=isch&tbnid=DeHVv_C0awVC7M:&imgrefurl=http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist34/advertisements/fear%2520ads/pages/rogaine_jpg.htm&docid=F3AaaC7gCT4rxM&imgurl=http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist34/advertisements/fear%252520ads/images/rogaine_jpg.jpg&w=742&h=1089&ei=toq0Tsb9CKqPigLj0OBl&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=678&sig=108572797309938422470&page=1&tbnh=153&tbnw=104&start=0&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=69&ty=98&biw=1173&bih=512

This argument is appeal to fear because it is stating that men balding is a genetic trait and if you do not want this you can use Rogaine. It states “Your dad want you to have things he never had. Like hair.” This is many young males fear that they will go bald so therefore if you use Rogaine this will be fixed. It is not a good argument because your dad could want you to have many things in your life that you didn’t have. A better argument would be “Use Rogaine so you could have things that your dad didn’t. Like hair.” This advertisement would be very persuasive to men starting to bald or have a dad who is bald but there could be many other traits to be scared of as well or their dad might not be balding. The best argument would be “If you are scared of balding, use Rogaine.

Appeal to Emotion

The specific appeal to emotion that really caught my interest was the appeal to spite because I never considered it to be a type of fallacy or an appeal to emotion. Appeal to spite is when someone tries to win an argument by bring up a past event that cause them bitterness or spite. This causes a poor argument because more than likely the two situations are unrelated. I see this fallacy multiple times a day especially in today’s world where it seems like we always have to be even with each other. It goes back to an old saying two wrongs do not make a right. This is more a moral judgment than an argument. An example I see frequently is at my work when someone needs their shift covered. The reasoning is always Alex didn’t cover my shift on Friday night so I will not help him do the inventory count. This is something I am now aware of and am going to limit the appeal to spite in my reasoning.