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.