Generalizing

I found the concept of generalizing in chapter 14 to be both interesting and useful. The chapter explained that we generalize when we conclude a claim about about a group, the population, from a claim about some part of it, the sample. When one generalizes, they are making an argument. The term generalization was also defined in this section. It is the general claim that is the conclusion. This term can also be used to describe the entire argument. Inductive evidence was also explained in this section. Inductive evidence for the generalization is the plausible premises about the sample. The only way we can determine if a generalization is good is to see it as an argument. The examples in the section were very helpful and they allowed me to better understand generalizing. An example that was given showed that just because a study taken in one city shows that people are not satisfied with a type of SUV, it does not mean that people everywhere are not satisfied with their SUV's.

Favorite and Least Favorite Things About Class

Overall, I feel that this class was very informative and interesting. One of my favorite things about this class was the fact that it was available online. This was my first online class and I enjoyed having the luxury of being able to have an online class. Another one of my favorite things about this class was the textbooks that we used. I found both of the textbooks to be very helpful. They both explained concepts in great detail and they provided excellent examples that helped me grasp the concepts. Another thing I enjoyed about this class was that all of the students were able to view their classmates blogs and share comments with them. This helped me look at some of the concepts in a different way and understand them better. One of my least favorite things about this class was that we had to post on our blogs twelve hours apart. Another one of my least favorite things about the class was that we never had the chance to meet up as a class and discuss the concepts we were learning about. One way I think this class can be improved is by removing the time restrictions on the blog posts.

What I Have Learned

I have learned so many new concepts this semester. Some things that stood out to me this semester were arguments, fallacies, counterarguments, claims, repairing arguments, and how to effectively communicate within groups. Arguments were a very interesting area to me. I learned that the basic definition of an argument is, "an attempt to convince someone, using language, that a claim is true." This section definitely taught how to write better arguments. I also learned a lot about counter arguments in this class. A counter argument is basically refuting an argument. I learned about the different ways to write a counter argument. Fallacies were also one of the most interesting things I learned about in this class. There are so many different fallacies that I learned about. In the future I will be able to avoid fallacies in my writing. The different types of claims that I learned about were also interesting. I learned a lot about general claims and concealed claims. I also learned techniques for repairing arguments which are very useful. The Group Communication book taught me a lot of information too. I learned how to effectively communicate in small groups and organizations. I also learned about the importance of leadership and decision making in groups and teams. I can use many of the skills I learned from this class in the future.

Two Mistakes in Evaluating Cause and Effect

I found the section of Chapter 15 that discussed the two mistakes in evaluating cause and effect to be both interesting and useful. The first mistake that this section discusses is, "Reversing Cause and Effect." The example that was given showed how Tom reversed cause and effect in the statements that he made. The second example that was given also helped me to better understand this concept. The second example showed how Suzy reversed cause and effect. The next concept that was discussed in this section was titled "Looking too hard for a cause." I found this concept to be very interesting. "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" was also discussed. This means "after this, therefore because of this." This tends to occur when people overlook a possible cause. There can definitely be more than one cause for many events, so it is not right to jump to a conclusion so quickly. This section explained that we look for causes because we want to understand things, which makes sense. Another thing I found interesting was that for many things we will not be able to figure out a cause because we do not know enough.

Mission Critical Website

The Mission Critical Website was very useful. This website was helpful for me because it contained many links to a variety of different concepts. Under "The Basics" heading of this website, I found the links to be very informative. I especially found the page about Universal Statements to be useful. The Conjunctions and Disjunctions page also helped me get a better understanding of the concept. There were also many informative links under the "Analysis of Arguments" heading. One of the links that I found very useful was Deductive arguments because the concepts were explained in great detail and the exercises were helpful. The "Fallacies and Non-Rational Persuasion" heading also contained some interesting links. The fallacy review exercises and the quiz were extremely helpful as well. The Misdirected Appeals and Emotional Appeals sub-headings were very useful. Overall, this website was definitely useful to me and it helped me better understand many concepts.

Cause and Effect Website

I found the cause and effect website to be very helpful and interesting. The first example that was on the website was very interesting. When I first read the example, I immediately thought that the truck was at fault for the accident. The explanation of the differences in the arguments that the website gave was helpful to me. It was helpful that the difference between a causal and inductive argument was explained. The two rules of causation were explained very well and they helped me grasp the concept better. The explanations of post hoc, reverse causation and common cause were also extremely helpful. It was very helpful that this webpage focused on one example and throughly analyzed it. I think if there was more than one example I would have not understood this concept a fully. The three factors that were at the bottom of the webpage also help out. I also completed the exercises and they definitely helped me understand this concept.

Analogies in the Law

I found the section about Analogies in the Law in Chapter 12 to be very interesting. According to the textbook, analogies in the law are presented as "detailed and carefully analyzed arguments" that have the "important similarities pointed out and a general principal stated." Many of the laws that we have are not very specific. It is very important that all of the laws we have be applied consistently. In most instances, judges usually make their ruling based on a previous case or cases that were similar. One example of a case when a judge said all past rulings were incorrect was Brown vs. the Board of Education. This case dealt with segregation in schools. Another example of this is the Roe vs. Wade case, which dealt with abortion. When a judge is in a situation in which he does not know what to decide, he will look for differences between the current case and previous cases.

Reasoning by Analogy

I felt that I needed to further research reasoning by analogy because it was difficult for me to understand. One website that I came across was helpful and explained this concept clearly. This website defined an analogy as: "a statement of logical relationship between two similar things that are compared with each other." This definition helped be better understand what an analogy really is. The site also explained that an argument by analogy can be: "A is like B" or "X is similar to Y." I found another website that was also helpful. This site explained that there are four steps to take when you reason by analogy. The first step is that you must identify the analogy by recognizing the similarities between objects and situations. The second step is to state the purpose of the analogy. The third step is to access the source of the analogy. The fourth and final step is to evaluate the ambiguities, dissimilarities, and false attributions that may weaken or break the analogy. This additional research helped me better understand reasoning by analogy.

Reasoning Examples

Example of Reasoning by Analogy:
"Spot is a dog and Spot barks.
Max is a dog.
Max will bark."
Example of Sign Reasoning:
"When its winter season, it must be cold outside."
Example of Causal Reasoning:
"My grade is poor because my teacher does not like me."
Example of Reasoning by Criteria:
"This car has all of the features that you were looking for. Are you interested in buying it." "You need to buy this car, it's sick."
Example of Reasoning by Example:
"You should come to the gym with me. One of my friends doesn't
go to the gym and he is unhealthy."
Example of Inductive Reasoning:
Premise: "My teacher has showed up to class every day this semester."
Conclusion: "My teacher will show up to class tomorrow."
Example of Deductive Reasoning:
"All cats are lazy. Jinx is a cat. Jinx is lazy."

Overall, I felt this exercise was very helpful and helped me better understand these examples of different types of reasoning.

Appeal to Vanity

According to the textbook, a feel good argument is one that appeals to our wanting to feel good about ourselves. Appeal to vanity is a fallacy in which one uses compliments to make another person feel good to convince or persuade them. This type of fallacy is also referred to as apple polishing. An example of appeal to vanity would be: "Dad, I know that I disobeyed you and made a huge mistake by going out past my curfew, but you sure prepared a delicious meal for dinner tonight." This would be considered an appeal to vanity because the speaker is trying to make their dad feel good by complimenting his meal. Apple polishing is usually much more effective if the compliment that the person makes is closely related to the issue. In the previous example, the compliment that the speaker gave their dad was not related to the issue that they were dealing with and was therefore not very convincing.

Objective 6

According to chapter 10 of the textbook, "Appeal to spite, the hope of revenge, is invariably rejected as bad by some people on moral grounds." In appeal to spite, spite is substituted for evidence when an argument is made against a claim. Appeals to spite can very often be found in political speeches and also in every day conversation. One example of appeal to spite that I found was: "If you decide to vote in favor of this tax cut, the wealthy will just have more money, while middle class citizens like us will continue to struggle to get by." The argument here is that, "you should not vote in favor of the tax cut because it will just let the wealthy keep more money." This statement would not be considered a good argument as is. The premise needed to make this argument strong is "you should not vote in favor of something that does not benefit you."

Appeal to Emotion

According to the textbook, emotions definitely influence our reasoning. Our emotions influence almost all decisions that we make on a daily basis. In chapter 10 of the textbook, it states that: "An appeal to emotion in an argument is just a premise that says you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way." Even though this is dealing with the premise, most of the time the entire argument is called an appeal to emotion. One of the aspects of appeal to emotion that caught my attention was appealing to fear. Appeal to fear happens when a claim is used to create fear. I found this aspect of appeals to emotion to be very interesting because of all of the political campaigning that has been going on. Appeal to fear can be easily found in many campaign advertisements for politicians. This aspect of appeal to emotion is also extremely common in marketing. Appeal to fear is considered bad if one legitimate concern is substituted for all others. On the other hand, appeal to fear is good if it is the only factor in making a decision.

Fallacies

One concept in the class that we have discussed that I believe needed to be further researched is Fallacies. After reading the section of the textbook that discussed this topic, I felt that I did not fully understand some concepts involving fallacies. One website that I found helpful was http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html. I felt that this website helped me better understand fallacies. One concept that this website helped me understand was arguments. Under the argument section of this website it talks about using good premises. It says that good premises are ones that you have good reason to believe are true and relevant to the issue at hand. Another point that this website made about arguments was that they should provide good support for the conclusion. One section of this website that really helped me better understand this concept was the section that described each fallacy in detail and provided good examples for each fallacy.

Assignment 2: Social Organizations

I found the second major group project to be very useful. This assignment was very interesting for me because I was interested in learning more about different social organizations. For this project, my group choose the social organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving, also known as MADD. This assignment was very useful because we were able to connect what we leaned in class to the real world. One component of this assignment that I enjoyed was that we had to find different artifact on the MADD website that were related to different concepts in the textbook. This project was also very informative because we had to truly learn what the social organization was fighting for and what their stance was on certain social issues. Another component of this project that I enjoyed was that we got to work in groups and work together to complete this assignment. Overall, I found this assignment to be very helpful and informative.

Chapter 8

"General Claims and their contradictories" was the first concept discussed in chapter 8. I learned many new things from this section. This section says that we need to know how to reason using general claims that assert something in a general way about all or a part of a collection. This section discusses the terms "all" and "some". According to the text "all" means "every single one, no exceptions." All can also mean "every single one, and there is at least one." The meaning of "all" depends on the argument. The next term discussed is "some." "Some" means "at least one." In other cases "some" can mean "at least one, but not all." The meaning of "some" depends on the argument. Another term discussed is "no". "No" means "not even one, every single one is not." The next term in this section is "only". "Only" means "Only S are P" and it means "All P are S." Claims usually start with words such as: all, some, some are not, no. On the other hand, contradictories can start with words such as: some are not, not every, no, all are not, not even one, all are, some are. A personal life example of this is if someone said: "All basketball players are tall." The contradictory of this would be: "Some basketball players are not tall, just look at Earl Boykin."

Conditionals

I found the section of that text about conditionals to be interesting. A claim is considered a conditional claim if it can be rewritten as an "if..then..." claim that must have he same truth value. There are two parts to a conditional, the antecedent and the consequent. "If A, then B", the claim A is the antecedent, and the claim B is the consequent. An example of this would be: "If John gets taller, he will make the basketball team." In this example, the antecedent is "John gets taller" and the consequent is "He will make the basketball team." A contradictory of a conditional is: "If A, then B" has contradictory but "not A but not B." The contradictory of a conditional is not another conditional. Contrapositive's were also discussed in this section. The contrapositive of "If A, then B" is "If not B, then not A." A claim and its contrapositive are equivalent.The terms "necessary" and "sufficient" were also discussed in this chapter. A is "necessary for B means "If not A, then not B is true." A is sufficient for B means "If A, then B is true." Slippery slope arguments were also discussed in this section. A slippery slope argument is a bad argument that uses a chain of conditionals, at least one of which is false or dubious.

Chapter 7

Chapter 7 discussed counterarguments. The first concept discussed was "Raising Objections." Raising Objections is basically a way to show that an argument is bad. You can do this by calling one of the premises into question or showing that an unstated premise is dubious or shows how the argument is weak. There are three different ways of refuting an argument. The first way is by showing that at least one of the premises is dubious. The second is by showing that the argument is not valid or strong. The final way is by showing that the conclusion is false. An argument can also be refuted indirectly. If you want to reduce to the absurd, you must show that at least one of the claims is false or dubious. You can also draw a false or unwanted conclusion from the claims to show that the claims are collectively unacceptable. Sometime when people attempt to refute an argument, it turns out to be a bad argument.

Chapter 6

One of the important concepts in chapter 6 was "Considering the Alternatives." This section discussed compound claims. A compound claim is a claim that is composed of other claims, but it has to be viewed as just one claim. An example of a compound claim would be, "I'll go to the game or I'll stay home and watch it on t.v." Another concept discussed was "alternatives." Alternatives are the claims that are the parts of an "or" claim. A contradictory of a claim is a claim that has the opposite truth value in all possible circumstances. An example of a contradictory of a claim is: Claim: "John is talking" Contradictory: "John is not talking." There is also a contradiction of an "or" claim. This means that: A or B has contradictory not A and not B. A contradictory of an and claim is: A and B has contradictory not A or not B. False dilemma's were also discussed in this chapter. A false dilemma is a bad use of excluding possibilities where the "or" claim is false or implausible.

Common Mistakes in Evaluating Premises

I found the section titled "Common Mistakes in Evaluating Premises" to be very interesting. The first common mistake in arguing premises is arguing backwards. Arguing backwards is when "it's a mistake to reason that because we have a strong or valid argument with a true conclusion, its premises must be true" According to the text, an argument is supposed to convince us that its conclusion is true, not that its premises are true. The second mistake discussed is called confusing possibility with plausibility. When this common mistake comes up, we should not believe the theory, but rather look for evidence before we believe the argument. The third mistake discussed is bad appeals to authority. This is "a mistake to accept a claim as true solely because a lot of other people believe it. This mistake is common in everyday conversation when we are talking to our friends because we tend to view our friends as authorities. The next mistake discussed is mistaking the person for the claim. This is when you reject a claim solely because of who said it. If you did not believe what your classmate said just because that particular classmate said it, then you are making this mistake. The final mistake is mistaking the person for the argument. This is very similar to the previous mistake. With this mistake, you should not reject an argument solely because of who said it.

Advertising on the Internet

The advertisement that caught my attention was featured on Yahoo(www.yahoo.com). The advertisement was located near the bottom of the Yahoo homepage. I clicked on the ad and it took me to this webpage:http://www.healthheadlines.com/article/content/fb_lgid=16&fb_lpid=180&fb_itid=13357&fb_itid2=1072&nid=58&aff_id=promo_lookdown_verd. The advertisement was for Force Factor. The claims that this advertisement made was that "Force Factor builds muscle faster." The ad also said that Force Factor was the "USA's #1 Strength Enhancer." This advertisement was offering a free sample. The evidence that the ad gives is a quote from U.F.C. Champion B.J. Penn: "Force Factor is the absolute best product to hit the market in years." This provides evidence for the claim because a U.F.C. champion is a reputable source for building muscle.The ad also listed the benefits of Nitric Oxide: Drastic Muscle Gains,Increased Blood Flow and Oxygen Delivery to Muscles, Transform Your Body, Boosted Strength, Endurance and Power, Supports Your Immune System, Immediate Results. This shows that Nitric Oxide will benefit your body greatly. Since this advertisement was featured on the Yahoo homepage, it seems likely that this is a reputable advertisement. Based on my personal experience though, I would have to suspend my judgement on the claim, due to the fact that most advertisements of this sort are false.

Repairing Arguments

It is very common for people to make arguments and leave out obvious claims. According to the principal of rational discussion, you must make three assumptions. The first assumption is that the person who you are discussing or arguing with know about the subject under discussion. The second is that the other person is able and willing to reason well. The third assumption is that the other person is not lying. According to the text, if you do not follow these rules: you are denying the essentials of democracy, you are not going to know what to believe yourself and you are not as likely to convince others. An apparently defective argument must satisfy all three of the following before a premise or conclusion can be added: The argument becomes stronger or valid, the premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person, and the premise is more plausible than the conclusion.
This is an example of an argument that needs to be repaired: "No cats bark. So Fluffy does not bark." The premise that needs to be added to this argument is: "Fluffy is a cat." If this premise is added, then this is a good argument because it is true that Fluffy is a cat.

Organizational Relationships

I am going to discuss the organizational relationships discussed in chapter 4 of "Group Communication." The first organizational relationship discussed is the relationship between superiors and subordinates. An example of this in the workplace would between managers and employees. It is very important that the boss communicates with their employees so that everybody is on the same page. I think that communication between boss and employee is critical to operating a successful business.If they can not communicate efficiently, the business will definitely not run smoothly.

The next relationship discussed in the text is the relationship between team leaders and team members. Many organizations have recently decided to break employees up into teams. Small group communication is very key to the success of these teams. It has been found that teams outperform individuals in many organizations. The leader of these teams plays a very important role because they guide the team toward its goals. Many people will be placed in teams at their job, so it is very important to know how to communicate within your team.

The relationship between organizational departments is also discussed. Every single department must work together to operate a successful organization. If some departments within the organization do not communicate, there will be confusion and the organization will not be running smoothly. I found this section of the chapter to be very informative and I learned that communication is extremely important in the workplace.

Violating the Principal of Rational Discussion: Strawman

The straw man fallacy is when you misinterpret your opponents argument and refute the misinterpreted argument instead or the original argument. The misinterpreted argument is usually similar to the original argument, but it is easier to refute. There are a few different ways that the straw man fallacy can occur. One way is quoting your opponents argument out of context. A second way of setting up this fallacy is oversimplifying your opponents argument. Another way that the straw man fallacy can occur is by purposely misinterpreting your opponents argument so you can easily attack it.
An example of a straw man fallacy would be:
John: "Do you want to go hiking this weekend?"
Tim: "No, I don't want to go hiking"
John: "O.k., so your telling me your not my friend anymore."
Tim: "I didn't say that."

This is an example of a straw man fallacy because John is misinterpreting what Tim is saying. John says that Tim is ending their friendship just because he doesn't want to go hiking this weekend. Tim does not mention that he is no longer friends with John. This is why this is a straw man fallacy.

The Structure of Arguments

Exercise #2) I'm on my way to school. 1 I left five minutes late. 2 Traffic is heavy. 3 Therefore, I'll be late for class. 4 So i might as well stop and get breakfast. 5

Argument: Yes

Conclusion: I am going to be late for class, so I might as well stop and get breakfast.

Additional premises needed? Additional premises are needed to make this a better argument. This person does not give a reason for being five minutes late. They also need to add a premise after the fourth claim. Just because this person is going to be a few minutes late for class, they do not have a good reason to get breakfast and arrive at class even later. This would help connect the fourth and fifth claim.

Identify any sub-argument: The first three sentences of this argument are sub-arguments that support the fourth claim. The fourth claim supports the fifth claim which is the conclusion.

Good Argument: This argument is not good because it needs a premise to connect the fourth and fifth claim. If the premise was added, this would be a good argument.

This exercise was very helpful. I learned how to make arguments better and how to analyze them. I will be able to use the information I learned in this class as well as my other classes.

Types of Leadership

According to "The Essential Guide to Group Communication" by O'Hair and Wiemann, there are four decision making styles that group leaders can exhibit. The first type of decision making style discussed in the text is authoritarian leadership. This type of leader makes all of the decisions and does not consider anything that the other group members have to say. The other group members are not involved in the decision making process and they tend to not work very hard toward accomplishing the group task. Consultative leadership is completely different from authoritarian leadership. With consultative leadership,the group leader ask the group members what they think and then makes a decision. Sometimes group members do not care for this type of leadership because they feel that the leader is just asking them their opinions and not considering what they say. Another type of leadership is participative leadership. In this style, the group members and the leader work together to make decisions. This style of leadership can result in "higher quality decisions" and result in "greater satisfaction." The fourth type of group leadership is laissez-faire leadership. With this type of leadership, the leader does not really do much leading and the group just attempts to get the task done. This style of leadership is not very effective and is considered to be the least satisfying management style. I found this section of the reading to be very interesting and informative. Prior to reading this section of the chapter I did not know about the four different decision making styles.

Strong versus Valid Arguments

According to chapter 3 in the Epstein text, "an argument is valid if there is no way the premise could be true and the conclusion false at the same time." Valid arguments do not necessarily need to be good arguments. If an argument is not valid then it is called an invalid argument. An argument is strong if it is highly unlikely that its premises are true and its conclusion is false. In the text it states that, "a strong argument with true premises is sometimes better than a valid one with the same conclusion."
A prime example of a valid argument from everyday life would be: "Every fast food restaurant has hamburgers and fries. So Taco Bell has hamburgers and fries." This argument is valid because if it is true that every fast food restaurant has hamburgers, then Taco Bell must have hamburgers because it is a fast food restaurant. This argument is not a good argument because both the conclusion and the premise are false. Therefore this argument is a valid argument but is also a bad argument.
An everyday example of a strong argument would be: "Every house that I have seen in California has at least one window. Therefore, every house in the state of California has at least one window." This argument is strong because it is very unlikely that there are any houses in California that do not have windows. In this example, it is highly unlikely that the premise is true and the conclusion is false.

Good Argument

There are 3 different tests that an argument must pass in order to be considered a good argument according to the Epstein text. The first test is: The premises are plausible. This means that we must have a good reason to believe that the premise is true. The second test is: The premises are more plausible than the conclusion. The final test is: The argument is valid or strong. An argument is considered valid if there is no possible way for its premise to be true and its conclusion false at the same time according to the text. Arguments are strong if "there is some way, some possibility for its premise to be true and its conclusion to be false (at the same time), but every such possibility is extremely unlikely."
The argument I will test is: "John is a basketball player. All basketball players are tall. Therefore John is tall." The first premise of this argument is plausible because there is no reason to believe that John is not a basketball player. However, the second premise of this argument is false because, although most basketball players are tall, not all of them are. The conclusion of this argument is true. Because the second premise is false, this is a bad argument. The premises of the argument are are not more plausible than the conclusion because not all basketball players are tall. This argument is valid because there is no way that John can be a basketball player and not be tall according to the argument. All in all, this argument is a bad valid argument.

Prescriptive and Descriptive Claims

According to "Critical Thinking" by Richard Epstein, a prescriptive claim is a statement about what someone thinks "should be" or "ought to be." A prescriptive claim usually involves one persons judgement of value. An example of a prescriptive claim would be: "John should go to the football game." This statement is considered a prescriptive claim because it is someones opinion about what John should do. We make subjective claims frequently in our everyday conversation.

A descriptive claim is different than a prescriptive. Descriptive claims describe "what is" as opposed to "what should be." An example of a descriptive claim would be: "John is at the football game." This statement is obviously not suggesting that John should go to the game, but rather telling the listener that he is in fact at the football game. Descriptive claims do not involve words like "should" or "ought to." It is not very difficult to determine if a claim is descriptive or prescriptive, you just need to determine if it is a suggestion or a statement about "what is."

Vague Sentences

A statement or sentence is considered to be vague if it is not clear in context. Another way to determine if a sentence is vague, is if it can be understood in more than one way. Vague sentences are very common in our everyday conversations. 

A friend of mine recently said, "I will meet you on campus." This is clearly an example of a vague sentence. This statement brings up many questions. First off, what campus are we meeting at? My friend and I may have two different campuses in mind. The second question is, where specifically on campus are we meeting? There are so many different areas on campus that we could meet up that we would have a difficult time finding each other if we did not specify a landmark or building to meet at. My friend's statement also does not let me know what time we are going to meet up. If my friend had been more specific, then I would not have been confused as to where we were meeting. After reading about vague sentences in the textbook and being a part of a real life example, I will try to be less vague in my writing and everyday conversation.  

Discussion Question #1: Subjective and Objective Claims

     A subjective claim is basically a statement that is an opinion. This type of claim can not be proven true or false. Subjective claims are very common in everyday conversation. Recently, my roommate and I were talking about the upcoming NBA season. My roommate confidently said "I think the Miami Heat are by far the best team in the NBA." This is clearly an example of a subjective claim because there is no way to prove that this statement is true or false. The statement made by my roommate is based on his opinion and is not a factual claim.  There is no way for me to prove that the Miami Heat are not  the best team in the NBA.
     An  objective claim is a statement that is true or false. I recently used an objective claim when my friend asked me who the Giants played today. I responded by saying "they played the Rockies." This statement is an objective statement because it is a true statement. Even if I had made a false statement and said, "they played the Padres," that would still be an objective claim because that statement does not depend on what I think or believe.

Introductory Post

Hello, 

I am currently in my third year at San Jose State.  My communication experience is that I have taken Comm 20 here at SJSU. By taking this course I hope to learn how to communicate better within a group. I also hope to improve my problem solving and decision making skills in a group environment. This is the first online class that I have taken. My interests include basketball, baseball, football, playing guitar, and being outdoors.