Repairing Arguments

You shouldn't play that game because you'll end up not doing your homework.

The conclusion is there, but it need a premise like, "video games are addicting and will take up a lot of your time." Then it needs a sentence to link to the conclusion. "Being addicted to something will prevent you from doing other things." This sentence is the glue that links the premise with the conclusion. It could even use some evidence like if you know that the person you are trying to convince plays games and ends up not doing their homework, then that could back up your conclusion. This follows the rational discussion rules that the person knows about the subject, is able to reason well, and is not lying. To repair the argument, with the claims it makes the argument stronger or valid, the premises are plausible, and the premises are more plausible than the conclusion. So the new argument would be:
"Video games are addicting, and when you play you will get addicted. Being addicted to something will prevent you from doing other things, such as your homework. You shouldn't play that game because you'll end up not doing your homework."
This is now a good argument.

Communication in Organization

Relationships between Superiors and Subordinates

Communication between an employee and their manager/boss is important in their relationship. You have to maintain a professional relationship so you have to be able to communicate well. What is mostly communicated amongst an employee and their superior or subordinate are mostly about work: tasks, issues, projects, how we're doing right now, what we can do to be better, etc. You can't be saying inappropriate things or things that would normally get you in trouble, unless your relationship is that close. I know when I work I have to watch what I say because it could be an HR issue, so either I could get fired/in trouble or my manager or co-worker could get in trouble. I mean, depending on where you work, how you communicate is different. I work at a place where a lot of people can hear what I say and where if they don't like what they hear or see they could report me. If you're working someplace like an amusement park, I imagine it to be less strict. I think you have to have that professional relationship but at the same time don't make it so that it's all professional, you have to have fun too and be able to be yourself. So in a workplace relationship you have to know when to be serious and when to goof off.

How are you gonna tell me to do that when you don't even do it?

Phony refutation

The phony refutation fallacy is like hypocrisy. Someone has an argument but doesn't even follow it. This argument is bad because they don't even believe their argument. It's not consistent with what they're saying and the actions they do. Some of the most common examples that I hear a lot is when my mom tries to convince me to do things like the laundry, or wash the dishes, or clean the house. Her arguments being things like "I think you should wash the dishes because you never do it." I always counterattack by saying "How can you tell me to do those things when you don't even do it?" I dismissed her argument that I should be doing the laundry or washing the dishes by citing that her words are inconsistent with her actions. She tells me to do those things when she doesn't even do it. She says to do the laundry because I never do it. Well how is that argument convincing when she doesn't even follow the argument herself. She never does the laundry either, so maybe she should do it. How can she convince me to wash the dishes when she doesn't even wash the dishes herself? She doesn't even follow her own argument, therefore, the argument is bad.

Complex Arguments for Analysis

1.) My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.(1) People do not like living next door to such a mess.(2) He never drives any of them.(3) They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place.(4) It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.(5)

Argument? (Yes)
Claims(1,2,5)
Conclusion: My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.
Addt'l premises? Since people don't like living next door to such a mess, people won't want to move there, therefore decreasing property values.
The cars leak oil all over the place and (insert reason that it is bad for the neighborhood).
Because it is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values, my neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.
Subarguments: People do not like living next door to such a mess.
It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.
Good argument? (No)

This exercise was useful, but very hard to do because there were too many subarguments in the argument. I felt like the premises supported the subargument and the main argument, and the subargument supported the main argument, which was confusing.

Leadership and Decision Making in Groups and Teams

The role of the leader in a group is to direct and influence. In groups, there always seems to be someone who steps up to be the leader, whether it be to assign the other group members tasks or to control the flow of tasks. There are four decision-making styles that leaders usually have: authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire. Authoritarian leaders take control without any decisions from the other group members. Consultative leaders make the other group members believe that their input is taken into account before the leader makes their own decision in the end. Participative leaders make sure that they involve other group members and they come up with a decision together. Laissez-faire leaders, or "hands off" approach, don't really do anything, they just go with the flow and do the task. I think that the most common leadership is the participative leader. Well, in most of the groups I'm in, there is a participative leader. What I don't like sometimes is the consultative leader. I know that they're trying to test the waters and getting other people's opinions first, but in the end they're just making the decision on their own, which I think is kind of selfish. Just like when you're doing a group project, someone has to step up to be the leader or else it will be chaos and everyone will do their own thing and no one will know what their role is.

Strong vs Valid Arguments

A strong argument is strong if and only if it is not probable that its conclusion is false if the premises are true. A valid argument is valid if and only if its premises are true then its conclusion must be true. For valid arguments it may or may not have true premises. They sound the same but for strong arguments have probability, while valid arguments have possibilities. A strong argument is strong if there is some way for its premises to be true and its conclusion false at the same time. According to the Epstein text valid or strong arguments don't depend on the whether the premises are true, whether we know the premises are true, and whether the person making the argument thinks the argument is valid or strong.

An argument can be valid even if its premises are false(or can't be proven true), but leads to the conclusion being true.
example of valid argument:
The water is made of pink jello.
I am swimming in the water.
I am swimming in pink jello.

Examples of everyday life:
Valid Arguments:
If you don't eat anything, you'll starve.
Strong arguments:
"If you don't get at least 7-8 hours of sleep, you won't be able to stay awake in class."

Tests for an Argument to be Good

According to the Epstein text for an argument to be good it must pass three tests:
-The premises are plausible
-The premises are more plausible than the conclusion
-The argument is valid or strong

The tests don't depend on each other so if one fails, it doesn't necessarily mean that the others will fail also. If we find that it's possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false then it is not a valid argument. If we know that the premises are true then the argument is good.

In order to be alive, your heart must be beating.
Richelle's heart is beating.
Richelle is alive.

Is there any way for the premises to be true, but conclusion false? Is there any way for Richelle's heart to be beating but she is not alive?

In order to be alive, your heart must be beating.
Richelle's heart is beating. Richelle is not alive. -This cannot be true.

Is the premise plausible?
The premise seems credible, valid, or true so yes, the premise is plausible.
Are the premises more plausible than the conclusion?
The first premise is more plausible than the conclusion because we can say Richelle is alive, but how do we get there? The conclusion seems credible, but the premises are more credible.
Is the argument valid or strong?
Is it possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false? No, it's not, so then the argument is valid. Are the premises true? Yes, the premises are true, so the argument is strong.

Arguments

People argue all the time. Arguments are almost unavoidable, especially if you're a stubborn person and you always want to be right. An argument must have a number of reasons to back up or convince someone that the conclusion is true. What we need to use to argue should be sentences that are either true or false. An argument is almost like persuading someone. The point is to convince someone that your claim is true. For instance, in basketball when referees call fouls, like when a referee calls a charging foul on someone who didn't commit the foul, the referee might argue with another referee on what the correct call was. Or more simpler, when you are trying to argue what an answer was to a math problem.

The other day, I was arguing with one of my friends who regularly sees a psychic and I was arguing with her that the psychic was fake and is only trying to get her money. I believed that the psychic was just a scam and continued to give premises as to why I think that the psychic is not real and is only out to get her money. I told her that
1) The psychic has never said anything descriptive or personal about my friend or my friend's life whatsoever
2) If the psychic really wanted to help her out then she wouldn't be charging so much for her "services" and other props she uses
3) Everything the psychic tells her is very vague(see post below hahahaha), the psychic tells her things I could tell her or anyone for that matter like (you will become very successful in the future)

So I backed up my argument with reasons as to why the psychic she was seeing is fake and is just a scam. I was trying to convince my friend to believe that the conclusion I was getting it was true.

I think arguments are fun and annoying sometimes too. The little arguments that people have over the most stupid things can get pretty heated, especially if you are trying to be right about it.

Vague and Ambiguous

When I'm watching TV, I always see commercials that provide statistics or facts that are very vague, and I always wonder if what they say is true or not, for instance in commercials that advertise medicine or phone companies that say that their product is better than a competitor's product. Some commercials that include statistics like "4/5 women" or "3/4 people" don't really explain the details. What kind of women? Where are they from? People..? Does that include everyone in the world? I always wonder where they are getting their statistics from, like yesterday I saw a medicine commercial and they stated that this medicine "is the leading brand recommended by doctors." Well what kind of doctors? How many doctors? Doctors from where? Why would they recommend it? Are the doctors certified? These kinds of thoughts pop in my head. Providing such a vague sentence doesn't really convince me that I should get that brand, it also doesn't answer very many questions. Anyone could have interpreted that sentence differently. How can that be proven without clarifying all the questions that need to be answered? Statements like that are too vague to make it a claim. We need the person making that statement to be more clear before we can decide whether it's true or not.

Subjective and Objective Claims

Subjective claims and objective claims are used every day. What separates the two is opinion and fact. Subjective claims depend on what someone thinks or feels; it is whatever their opinion or preference on the matter is. They can't be proven true or false with facts. Objective claims don't depend on what anyone else thinks or feels about it. Objective claims are unaffected by someone's opinion; they can be verified as true or false.

Yesterday I went to Wingstop to eat and one of my friends said: "These atomic wings are hot, but they don't taste very good." This is an example of a subjective claim because my friend is expressing his own opinion. I'm sure that other people have different opinions on the matter, they may think differently. His claim can't be proved with facts. It is his own preference and opinion that the atomic wings at Wingstop don't taste very good. It is a biased statement and is dependent on what someone thinks. Someone else might have a different opinion and to them, might think that the atomic wings taste good.

Yesterday I was also wondering whether or not I should drop a class to add another one. As I was looking through classes to add, I also looked up when the last day to drop classes is. I asked my friend and she said that the last day to drop classes is February 5 on a Friday. The claim that the last day to drop classes is Friday, February 5 is an example of an objective claim because it is unaffected by someone's opinion. It can be proven true or false with facts. I looked it up on the website and it states that the last day to drop a class is February 5 - the claim has been proven. Whether it's true or false doesn't depend on what someone thinks. In this case, proving that it's true doesn't depend on what someone feels or thinks.