Repairing Arguments.

The Guide to Repairing Arguments

-When you have a flawed argument, you can add a premise or conclusion if it fulfills all 3:

1. Argument becomes stronger or valid.

2. Premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.

3. Premise is more plausible than the conclusion.

Once the argument is valid or strong, you can take out a premise if it doesn’t make the argument worse.

Example:

No fish flies. So Nemo does not fly.

In order to make this a valid or strong argument we can add, “Nemo is a fish.” Because that is true, the argument is good. But, if we were to add “Nemo swims” it doesn’t make the argument any better so it would not satisfy making the argument valid or strong in the guide to repairing arguments.

We can’t have:

No fish flies. Nemo swims. So Nemo does not fly.

Now we have a repaired argument:

No fish flies. Nemo is a fish. So Nemo does not fly. 

Relationships between Superiors and Subordinates.

I thought this section of The Essential Guide to Group Communication book was interesting because I can relate to it. In a workplace organization, there are superiors (managers) and subordinates (employees). It is a team. This means that there is some type of communication between the employees and employers. It talks about how the boss and employee have to still communicate about what is going on in relation to the store. In my experience, I can see how the boss and employees communicate. Every morning, we have an informative morning rally. Before the store opens at 9:45am, the boss gathers all of us up and talks about how the store is doing in terms of customer service, how much sales we’ve made compared to last years, what our goal is, projects that are being done, which department is doing good, etc. Through this type of relation superiors and subordinates are able to perform an outstanding communicative behavior. 

Bad appeal to authority.

(Almost) anything that ________ says about _______ is (probably) true.

Bad appeal to authority is a fallacy in which an argument is presented through some authority, but this authority or witness might lack credibility. He or she might lack knowledge in that expertise, may be biased or prejudiced, might have a reason to lie, or may simply not remember or recall such information.

Example:

Ms. Mauro, my senior year of high school Physiology teacher, has told the class that in chemistry, covalent bonds is the strongest bond out of the three (covalent, ionic, hydrogen). Because of Ms. Mauro’s expertise in Physiology, we must conclude that this is true.

So you can say, overall:

(Almost) anything that Ms. Mauro says about chemistry is (probably) true.

*The conclusion involves chemistry, and the authority is an expert in Physiology. Since it is not reliable that a Physiology teacher would be an expert in chemistry, this argument is a bad appeal to authority. 

Structure of Arguments.

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 or no) Yes, claims 1, 2, 3.

Conclusion: So I might as well stop and get breakfast.

Additional Premises Needed?

If someone is on his or her way to school and left five minutes late, and traffic is heavy, then he or she will be late for class. a

If someone will be late for class, he or she might as well stop and get breakfast. b

Identify any subargument: 1, 2, and 3 are independent and support 4. Then 4 supports the conclusion, 5.

Good argument? All the premises seem plausible. The premises seem more plausible than the conclusion. The argument is strong…when the premises could possibly be true, the conclusion of stopping and getting breakfast could be false (at the same time).

Wow, I didn’t know evaluating an argument could have so many steps to it. This exercise took me awhile, but it sure did help me out through organization. It opened my eyes and understanding of the different arguments out there that can seem good or bad in terms of it being valid, strong, or weak. 

Time Pressures.

I thought that the “Planning to Avoid Time Pressures” section of the Group Communication book was pretty interesting to me because I can be a big time procrastinator especially now with my busy schedule of school, work, and dance. I know that planning and coordinating is always the way to go, but most of the time I seem to never follow it. I tell myself to, when I’m at school, but once I’m home, nothing gets done. All I want to do is relax and do nothing at all. I plan to avoid the time pressures of having a paper or project due the next day or studying for a big test the night before, but most of the time it never works out and I end up being pressured in time. This section of the chapter just reminded me to not procrastinate and cram because it doesn’t help me at all. In the short run it does, but in the long run it doesn’t. Planning and coordinating ahead of time concludes with better results. Now, I just need to make sure this reminder sticks with me and I do something about my procrastination. I got to avoid time pressures. 

Strong vs. Valid.

With given premises, in any way, is the conclusion false?

If you answer “yes” to the question above, you get invalid arguments that can be strong (or weak). If you answer “no,” you get a valid argument.

Valid argument: No possible way for the premises to be true and the conclusion false (at the same time); in other words, if the premises are true then conclusion should also be true.

Exampleà This school only allows students to wear khaki pants and a black shirt as a uniform. Therefore, all the students going to this school wear khaki pants and a black shirt.

*If the premises of the school only allowing students to wear wear khaki pants and a black shirt as a uniform is true, then the conclusion of all the students going to the school wear the khaki pants and a black shirt should also be true.

Strong argument: A possible way for the premises to be true and the conclusion false (at the same time), though these possibilities are very unlikely; the premises are true, but the conclusion can and may also be false.

ExampleàAll the students my friend and I have seen at this school wear khaki pants and a black shirt. Therefore, all the students going to this school wear khaki pants and a black shirt.

*It is possible the my friend and I have seen all the students at the school wear khaki pants and a black shirt, but the conclusion of all the students going to the school wear khaki pants and a black shirt can and may be false.

Strong arguments (with true premises) can sometimes be better than valid ones that both end with the same conclusion.

Also, when deciding if an argument is strong or valid, it does not depend on:

1. if the premises are true,

2. if we know the premises are true, and

3. if the person making the arguments believes the argument is valid or strong.

Thr33 tests...for a good argument.

Argument:

Cyrille normally does not wear eyeliner. But today, Cyrille has eyeliner on. So Cyrille tattooed the eyeliner.

Good Argument:

1. Premises = plausible.

        2. Premises = more plausible than the conclusion.

3. Argument is valid or strong.

First of all, the two premises of Cyrille normally not wearing eyeliner and having on eyeliner that day is possible.

Second, it is more plausible for the premises of normally not wearing eyeliner and having eyeliner on that day to be true compared to the conclusion of the tattooed eyeliner. Maybe Cyrille all of a sudden decided to temporarily put on some eyeliner that day; it’s possible, instead of permanently applying it through cosmetic surgery. Or maybe she got a bruise that formed a line on her eyelid, or maybe she accidentally marked herself with a black marker, or…

Third, it’s not a valid argument where every way the premises could be true the conclusion is true, but a strong one because the premises can possibly be true and it’s conclusion of tattooing the eyeliner false (at the same time).

Also, since we now that Cyrille does not wear eyeliner makes this a good argument.

It's all in your head.

I was able to relate to The Essential Guide to Group Communication book when it talked about assess, control, and manage communication apprehension. Being a pretty shy person, I get really nervous and anxious when it comes to speaking in front of an audience. But, reading this part of the book has advised and reminded me of what to do whenever I have to face my fear of presenting. I’ve noticed that whenever I’m presenting I tend to lose my breath because I forget to breath. I’ve learned that breathing is really important and trying to present something in one breath is just impossible. But I don’t know what the deal is, I tell myself that I should breath before presenting, but I still I have a hard time! I’ve also found it interesting that it is psychological. It’s all in your head. I’ve learned that I need to be more optimistic and not be so hard on myself because not everybody is perfect. If not the whole audience will understand at least one will. The last advice that refreshed my memory is to prepare by bringing in all material, notes, and also practicing what to say to have the communication as clear and easy as possible. Lastly, I need to keep in mind to manage apprehension and not eradicate it. 

Vague.

Last week, my little cousin, aunt, and I were at Target and my little cousin happened to stumble upon a toy, like always, that he really wanted. It was a Lego City Truck for $34.99. He said, “it’s cheap!” To him, he thought it was cheap because as a 7 year old he doesn’t know the value of money. For my aunt, she thought it was expensive $_$ because she knows the value of money from working two jobs to pay off numerous bills, and other miscellaneous expenses. As for myself, I thought it was in the decent/expensive range because as an employee, I also valued money. I know how hard it is to earn, but unlike my aunt, I wasn’t paying off any bills, but just holding extra money. 

This situation qualifies “cheap” as being vague because what really is considered cheap or expensive or decent? A person earning more income can say something is cheap, but a person earning less can say that same thing is expensive. 

So what really draws the line of something being cheap or not? 

Subjective/Objective Claims

A subjective claim is basically an opinion. It is what someone thinks or feels towards something. Since it is an opinion, it doesn't matter if it's a true or false claim. Also, it being a personal preference, there should not be any arguments whatsoever about the claim.

My subjective claim example deals with dance practice.

We are all unique in our own ways and so when it comes to dancing, everybody is different and therefore hold certain skills. There are some that can be really good in presenting choreography (which I hold) and others that can be really good in free styling. When practice was over last week, I talked to one of my teammates about the choreography we had just practiced. He, being a b-boy dancer thought it was really hard because he doesn’t execute hip-hop choreography as good as his b-boy free style, but as for myself I thought it was pretty easy because I feel more comfortable with the hip-hop choreography. Overall, we had different feelings towards practice because our personal standards in dancing are not the same.

If a claim is not subjective it is objective. Objective claims are facts that can be proven either true or false. Therefore, do not assume all objective claims are true.

My objective claim example is how my little cousin acts.

Whenever it’s time for lunch or dinner, my whole family eats together. My little cousin on the other hand always says, “I’m not hungry” and refuses to eat the rice, meat, and vegetables we set on the table. Though, when we have ice cream right after, all of a sudden he says he’s hungry and eats the ice cream over the rice. The way my cousin acts in eating makes this an objective claim because it’s what he does, not what he thinks or feels.