concepts

I would like to talk about to concepts that have stuck with me throughout my entire semester. One would be the strawman fallacy and calling in your debts. One of the reasons why these stuck with me is because they both have really distinct titles. The strawman fallacy could also be an analogy to how fake or how false the statement is. The strawman is basically when you restate someone’s argument and modify it to sound fallacious or weaker. It is basically putting words in someone’s mouth. This argument stuck to me because it is such a common example that occurs during everyday life. Another example that is very common is calling in your debts. This is an effective device to sway emotion and get people to do certain things. This is what I liked about the concepts that I learned in class. I was able to relate them to everyday life and this is what made it a little easier to understand.

Class evaluation

My favorite thing about this class was having it online, which made it convenient for me to just stay home and do work. I was able to actually focus a little bit more because I was either at home or in the library and I had no classroom distractions. Also, if I ever got bored of reading the material I could always just take a break. Another thing that I enjoyed about this class was that I had a group to meet up with and I was able to actually interact with other people and work on projects. Something that I didn’t like about the class was that I would constantly have to look on the web page to see if there was any updates and sometimes I would be just too busy to check. I feel that this class could be improved by having face to face office hours or maybe even video chat. Other than that, the class was very enjoyable.

What I learned in Class

During this semester, I learned a lot of terms and concepts related to critical thinking such as strong vs. valid arguments, how to test for a good argument, I learned about claims, how to work in a group, and a lot more. I feel that the most valuable lesson that I have learned in this whole time I was in this class was team building. In the beginning of class I had to meet with a group of people that I didn’t know to complete one common goal. We had to use synergy in order to find the right times to meet up, accomplish tasks and resolve conflict. Within our groups, we learned different leadership styles as well as how to effectively lead a group discussion. We also learned that participative leadership style was the most effective because it gets everyone involved. Also, the work was distributed evenly and we were able carry our own weight.

Mission Critical Statement

The mission critical statement Website is useful because it contains various amounts of arguments and definitions for arguments. The Website includes basic parts of an argument and basic relations, analysis of arguments, Fallacies and non-rational persuasion, and other common fallacies. There are many terms that we have learned in the class so far that appear on the web page. For example the conjunction and and the disjunction or. This is one very basic concept that has been introduced in our previous classes. One of the categories that we were not introduced to in class was appeal to indirect consequences. Within that category we have the idea of wishful thinking. This concept is a concept that is often used in comedies in my opinion. Wishful thinking is basically a thought which on a positive note tries to distract the other person from the issue. I found the example in the yellow box very effective. The answer was “I’m not going to let Joe’s actions affect his promotion. After all wouldn’t be better if there was no sexual harassment in the workplace?” I found this a great example of wishful thinking.

Cause and Effect Website

The Cause and Effect Website reading was useful and very insightful. It demonstrated how people think when tracing back from an incident to the cause of an incident. The example was who was responsible for the car accident. The objective is to pinpoint exactly what was the cause of the accident. The question is, was it the bicycles fault for the accident or was it the fault of the person slamming the breaks? The strength of the argument relies on three main factors. According to the website, the first reason is how acceptable the implied comparison is. This basically means that we need to compare to other experiences with this instance in order to come to a conclusion. The second reason is how likely is the case for the causation which means how reasonable is it to say that A happened because of B. In this case, how likely is it to say that it was the bicycles fault that the driver immediately stepped on their breaks. The last claim according to the text is how credible the "only significant difference" or "only significant commonality" claim is meaning how credible is it to say that the bicycle was the only reason why there was an accident. Overall this reading was interesting.

Different Types of Resoning Examples

1.Reasoning by Analogy
Premise 1: I am in the comm40 class that is required for graduation.
Premise 2: Robert has not taken the comm40 class.
Conclusion: Robert cannot graduate

2.Sign Reasoning
I have noticed that I have not done all three of my blogs within 12 hours apart.
I will be sure to do that next week to make up for my mistakes this week.

3.Casual Reasoning
Premise 1: I feel very lazy at the moment.
Premise 2: I wasn’t able to do my homework.
Conclusion: Therefore my day was not productive.

4.Reasoning by Criteria
I have noticed that you have not fundraised enough money to cover the costs of your club expenses. You need to sell more items.

5.Reasoning by Example
You should study at least 3 hours a day for that class to do well. I noticed that people who spend more than three hours studying for that class get A’s in the class.

6.Inductive
The store has been opening at 9 a.m. everyday for the past 6 months. The store will open at 9 a.m.

7.Deductive
Premise 1: All Giants fans were at the Giants parade.
Premise 2: I am a Giants fan.
Conclusion: I was at the parade.

Fallacy of Competition

One concept that I have found useful is fallacy of composition. This fallacy states that whatever is the truth about an individual also stays true for the group. This is a very common fallacy. For example, the school should raise the tuition percentage just as the books that we should buy should be raised as well. Here lies an analogy between school and books. The first argument states that the school should raise tuition. One would ask why. The answer would be to cover costs from students because lack of funding from the government. However, the percentage price of books should not be raised because it just doesn’t make sense. Just because books and school are related, both prices shouldn’t be raised to match the other. It would not make any sense for schools to raise book prices because they are trying to keep low prices to entice students to shop at their store. I felt that fallacy of composition is a common fallacy which can be easily noticed.

Appeal to Spite

Appeal to spite is a very controversial yet powerful method that people use to sway others emotions. The book states that appeal to spite is a “hope for revenge”. I feel that appeal to spite is very controversial because it is solely based on emotion yet it is so common. For example, one of my friends (let’s say Jane) didn’t go to a party for my other friend (John), When Jane wanted John to help her with homework, John refused because he felt that Jane wasn’t being a good friend. I feel that appeal to spite is a very accepted practice especially in America. There are countless of action movies that base themselves on this principal. It is generally an accepted practice in our culture to take revenge. The book states that the principal invokes “two wrongs make a right.” I feel like appeal to spite is an effective way to invoke a strong argument, yet it is hard to distinguish whether it may be plausible.

Calling In Your Debts

One leader that I know in a student organization uses the method of calling in debts as an argument to convince others. This leader gives guilt trips to the members of the members of the organization. One example would be when one member didn't want to show up to an event. That member explained to her that she needed to go to a family party. The leader immediately stated "remember the time I helped you get that project done?" This is an example of callin in your debts. The member thought about it and decided to go to the event. With calling in your debts, the user uses a guilt trip to force the other person into a compromising situation. "Should I go to the family party and look like a jerk not helping out someone who helped me out?" Although this is an effective method of swaying emotion and reasoning, it is not an effective motivational tool. Calling in your debts feeds off negativity and creates fear within people if a person uses it too much.

Appeal to Emotion

According to the text, appeal to emotion is basically an argument that makes you react a certain way because of the way you feel. Emotion is a major aspect of reasoning. Without emotion we cannot reason effectively, but we cannot let it completely control our reasoning. The aspect of appeal to emotion that hits me the most is appealing to fear. Whenever I hear about thefts, rapes or murders in the news I am greatly affected. When I hear about these things I think about my own family and loved ones. This is why I feel that appeal to fear is an effective tool for arguments as well as an effective way to sway people’s viewpoints. As a student, I am fearful of what the politicians who are elected into office are going to do with our public education system. Recently, an effective commercial about Meg Whitman played on the air. It pretty much showed her saying the same things that Arnold Schwarzenegger has said when he ran for governor. This was an effective strategy because voters are fearful of candidates who can’t change California. Many voters like me are looking for reform and looking for new fresh candidates to change California. Appeal to emotion is a very persuasive tool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSLoTJySZmg

Bad Appeal to Common Belief

One concept in the class that we have covered so far that needs further discussion is bad appeal to common belief. The book states that bad appeal to common belief is “It’s usually a mistake to accept a claim as true solely because a lot of other people believe it to. What the book didn’t cover is exactly what triggers a person to reason that way. I would say that bad appeal to common belief is basically relates to the old saying “If s/he jumped off a bridge, would you do it to?” That’s the question people should ask themselves when they reason about common beliefs. If I join this cult maybe I could be a part of something special. For example, I used Ku Klux Klan in my pasts blogs. A very descriptive website was http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/common_belief.htm This website was very helpful because it gave a description, an example, and it discussed the concept as well as gave it a classification.

First Assignment

The first course assignment was useful because we gained team experience. We had to plan in a short period of time when and where we were to meet up as well as who was to do what. I liked how my group and I clicked pretty well. We had to implement the different types of concepts that we have learned in our online class and gather them all together. For example, we had to state the major claims as well as the premise that support the main claim. We also had to individually state whether or not we agreed with the argument or not. We had to use the material from Epstein to basically analyze whether or not our editorial was strong, valid or weak. It was somewhat hard to match everyone’s opinions and make everything concise and coherent. Overall the experience was great and I bonded with my group well.

Chapter 8

What I have learned from Chapter 8 is a direct way of reasoning implemented with general claim words such as no, all, only, and some. These words can be used differently depending on the argument. All would be used to effectively direct reason. For example, all basketball players are quick, George is a basketball player, so George is quick. Direct way of reasoning creates valid arguments. The general claim words such as no, all, only and some could all be used to create valid arguments as well. Another example would be no dogs eat cats, chip is a dog, so he doesn’t eat cats. An example of only would be only the strongest survive, Chris is the strongest, therefore he survives. These words are used to designate the direction in which your argument is heading. It is important to use the right word so you are not misunderstood and your argument is coherent.

Refuting With Bad Arguments

One thing that I have learned in chapter 7 is different ways to refute that make for bad arguments. Some examples stated in the book are phony refutations and ridicule. Phony refutations consist of claims that are weak and add false premises to the argument. The book states that a person may also follow a slippery slope and mistake it for reducing to the absurd. When a person follows a slippery slope, they add one false premise that leads to the next. Another way to refute that makes for a bad argument is using ridicule. Although for some it may sound appealing and amusing, it makes for a very illogical way of arguing. It also is a weak and useless way to reason. One example would be when my friend and I were arguing whether or not we should have our friends stay at my place for the night or his. So we were stating the costs and benefits of each place and I stated that my house was small, cozy and it was more comfortable. My friend decided to use ridicule to sway his argument by saying, “If you want to stay in a small cramped apartment that you can barely move in, then stay at his place.” Although it may sound reasonable at first, he just tried to win the argument by ridiculing my own argument and belittling my apartment.

Chapter 7

Chapter 7 is very informative chapter in a sense that it is basically the introduction to counter arguments during a debate type argument. In this chapter I learned about raising objections and refuting an argument. When we raise an objection, we are trying to convince others that the argument that was raised by our opponent is a faulty one. We show how the argument is weak, such as stating whether or not it is subjective or showing whether the argument is dubious or not. I also learned in this chapter that there are two ways of refuting an argument. There is refuting directly and refuting indirectly. Refuting directly consist of the method that we show the premise is dubious, show the argument to be weak, and show the conclusion to be false. (pg 149) We use indirect refutation in the case that we cannot exactly show that the premise is false but we can sense that the argument is weak or faulty.

Chapter 6

What I have learned from Chapter 6 is considering alternatives such as compound claims and the contradictory of a claim. I also learned about conditional and their contradictories. A compound claim is a claim that is compiles 2 or more claims and is seen as just one claim. For example, “I can either go to school or stay home and sleep.” The indicator word would be the word or. Within each of these claims consists of alternatives, which are all claims that make up a compound claim. The contradictory of a claim is a claim that is the complete opposite of another claim. For example a claim would be “I am a Warriors fan.” The contradictory of this claim would be “I am not a Warriors fan.” Conditional claims are claims that are perceived as if and then statements. For example, “If I don’t go to school today, then I will fail my quiz.” The contradictory of a claim instead would be an if, but not then. For example, “If I don’t go to school, I still won’t fail my quiz.” Knowing how to use compound claims and conditional claims will make your arguments much more effective and will help you see weak arguments.

Mistaking the person for the argument

The example that I am writing about is mistaking the person for the claim. Basically this means that you are disregarding the claim not because of invalidity, but because you are judging the person who said it. One example would be to not give tax breaks to Americans just because Barack Obama signed the initiative and because he is a Democrat. Mistaking the person for the argument is definitely something that we see in politics. It is definitely something that hinders the growth of our nation because politicians are making biased decisions based solely on whose party is on whose. Many Democrats would believe that tax breaks would be very beneficial to the nation, but Republicans would vote against it because Democrats would propose it. This is an illogical way of reasoning. Politicians would reject the argument solely on one reason; because the other side is getting a bit stronger. This really affects the nation as a whole because people in power make decisions based on mistaking the person for the argument.

Advertising and the Internet

Advertising on the internet is important for sites such as ebay, amazon, and craigslist are utilized by regular people who want to get rid of regular things. In my post, I will be talking about craigslist and how I usually go about evaluating ads. I've been dealing on craigslist for about 2 years now, both buying and selling various items. I have become an expert at seeking fake ads, scammers,and spammers on craigslist. I regularly search for cars on craigslist, because I usually finds good deals on cars because I don't have to deal with dealers and I could make really good deals. So recently I've been searching for cars, specifically a camaro. I recently saw this ad with a camaro that seemed too good of a deal. "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" as the old cliche says. The first claim that I rejected for this ad was that it was a camaro z28, as the title says. This claim contradicts a claim that has been made by a visual in the ad. I have reason to believe that this car is not a Z28 model, but rather an SS, as the pictures say. I am relying on personal experience with this ad because I've come across many ads like this before and I've owned many cars like this. The second claim that I rejected was that this car is being sold in San Francisco, as the title says. I use my background of Kelly Blue Book to analyze the price that this owner has set. He is selling this car for $3,700, when in actuality this car could be sold for around $10,000-$12,000. This fact brings me to the conclusion that the owner is very desperate or that this online ad is a fake. The likelihood of this being a fake ad is much greater because who would give up $7,000? Another detail I noticed is the picture looks like it is in a farm setting, and the ad is placed in San Francisco. This is an example of a Nigerian scheme in which the person who posts the ad makes an agreement with a person. That person sends a check to the seller and the seller promises to ship the car to that person. As stupid as it sounds, a lot of people fall for schemes like these. I would usually email people and gauge the situation to see if they actually want to meet in person. If they don't, then usually the deal is not legitimate. Using personal experience as well as other reputable sources such as kelly blue book, I am able to see if the claims that people make in online advertisements are true or not.

Repairing Arguments

I go to school. In class I take notes. Therefore I receive an education.
This a solid argument that needs minimal repair. Although the argument is sound, there are a few minor flaws with this statement. After the statement “I take notes”, the argument immediately jumps from taking notes to receiving an education. Receiving an education means different things to different people. To some, receiving an education could mean memorizing and passing their weekly quiz. To other, receiving an education could mean receiving their diploma. So you can see the one faces when addressing this argument. Adding a little more specificity and tweaking the argument will make the argument stronger. For example, “I got to school and take notes. These notes help me learn everything and pass the classes I need to graduate. Therefore I receive an education.” This statement is more plausible and sound. This example addresses the questions that I had earlier about what receiving an education means. Instead of making the reader decide what receiving an education means, you are telling them. If you pay attention to detail and add more supporting premises then you will definitely beef up your argument and repair any type of holes in your argument. Of course the argument isn’t perfect, but you will see the flow of your ideas and they will transition evenly, so that everyone sees your disposition. The premise is more plausible than the conclusion and would seem plausible to any reader reading it.

Bad Appeal to Common Belief

Bad appeal to common belief is the idea that since everyone in a group does it then it is acceptable to do or believe. When I think of this fallacy I often see it as a negative yet very assuring way to convince someone. This reminds me of the old rhetorical saying that parents ask their children, “If everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it too?” Of course not! I see this type of fallacy everywhere. One example of bad appeal to common belief would be something that I saw in high school. Underage drinking is something that spread like wildfire at my high school. Many students felt that since other kids were doing it than it was alright to do, even though it is illegal. Many kids would convince others that it was alright to do because everyone was doing it. Another example of this type of fallacy having a negative effect would be the era of the civil rights movement. Many whites in the South were being prejudice to African Americans because everyone else was doing it. There were many people, especially Ku Klux Klan leaders, who fed off the fear of average white citizens and used this type of fallacy to gain support for their empty cause. Bad appeal to common belief is a bad yet powerful type of fallacy because it can sometimes be effective. If we arm ourselves by learning how to think rationally, then we can avoid being victims of fast talkers, swindlers, and those who use different types of fallacies like bad appeal to common belief.

The Strawman

The item I have chosen to talk about that violates the principle of rational discussion is the Strawman. The Strawman fallacy is the idea of making your opponent seem like they have a faulty or imbalanced argument by distorting their argument into a weaker and less substantial argument. The Strawman fallacy makes it easy for one to refute the argument without actually addressing it. I see this type of arguing much too often, whether it be in politics, school, or even relationships. One example would be from my Comm 40 class. In this class we were given a debate topic on guns and whether or not citizens should own them. I was given the affirmative, and my contention was that citizens should be able to own guns for protection and because it is a right given to us by the second amendment. When it was time for the negative to refute my contentions, this person brought up the Strawman fallacy. He said “My opponent is saying that it is ok for regular citizens to carry firearms making it easy for criminals to rob, rape, and murder innocent women, children, and elderly.” By stating this, the person arguing for the negative was able to argue against my argument without actually having to address it. As the book states, my opponent was “putting words in my mouth.” As you can see, this type of arguing may be effective in making your opponent look bad, but it is not rational and you are not addressing the problem.

Argument Exercis

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 the property values.(5)
Argument: Yes
Conclusion: My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.
Additional Premise needed? If someone has cars in their yard that are inoperable, leak all over the place, annoy neighbors, and decrease property value then they should be forced to get rid of their cars. My neighbor has cars that are inoperable, leak all over the place, annoy neighbors, and decrease property value, therefore he should get rid of his cars.
Identify any subargument?2,3,4,and 5are independent and all support the conclusion, 1.
Good Argument? No. It is lacking more concrete and plausible premises as well as organization.
It’s like saying that we should kick out anyone in the classroom who smell just because people do not like it. It is a free country and people don’t have to shower if they don’t want to. If people were to get kicked out, I’m sure half the class would get kicked out. But let me cut to the point. First of all, claims 1 and 5 are subjective and fall under the category of content fallacy. The argument is lacking coherency. It isn’t clear which claim supports which other claim. The conclusion is stated at the beginning and is followed by the premises. The premises need to be rearranged in order for the argument to make sense. For example, “My neighbor has old beat up cars that leak all over the place.(1) He never drives them. (2) People do not like living next door to such a mess.(3) It is bad for the neighborhood and decreases property value.(4) Therefore my neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.“ (5)Also, a more plausible premise should be added, such as “It is unlawful to keep multiple cars in your front yard that are inoperable,” or something of that nature. This type of premise would be the glue that connects 1,2,3,4, to six. Organization is a key necessity for arguments to flow and make sense.
This exercise was very helpful because we were able to analyze and decided whether arguments were good or not. Some arguments need work and some don’t. In order for us to realize what is a good argument, we should be able to determine what an argument needs for it to be valid.

Leadership styles

Leaderships

I really liked this chapter in the book. It was very informative, especially because it pertains to my major. In Business, especially management, one has to know the type of leader or leadership that they display towards others. It is important to understand the types of leaderships there are because they are in our everyday surroundings. Whether it be in your classroom group, work, or government, we see different types of leaderships. The book states that there are 4 types of leaderships. These four types are authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire.
Authoritarian leadership is the type of leadership that is in full control of all the rules. They are in control of everything and everyone. In an authoritative type of leadership, things are made simple and everyone follows one set of rules. The negative side of this leadership is that followers under this type of leadership may not agree with the decisions of the leader but they have no say. An example of an authoritative leader would be Hitler.
Consultative leadership is the type of leadership in which the leader will confide in others in a group about important decisions. Often times they will ask others about making decisions, but they have final say. An example of a consultative leadership would be me back in high school when I was Rally Commissioner and in charge or Rallies. I had a committee who would help me decide who I should pick to perform in rallies and events, but I had final say on who was actually going to perform.
Participative leadership is the type of leadership which takes a group effort. Members of the group all have the same say in what important decisions go on in the group. What I notice with these types of leaderships is that there is a lot of clashing and arguments between members, but the outcome is usually better when decision making. An example of this type of leadership would be my group in Bus20 in which all members have the same decision making powers about what type of stocks and companies we have to evaluate.
Laissez-faire leadership is the type of leadership in which leaders do not intervene in actions that followers take. This type of leadership is basically no leadership at all. I’m sure Business students are usually familiar with this type of leadership because often times businesses are in favor of laissez-faire in which government don’t intervene in business with taxes, laws, rules, and regulations.

Strong Vs. Valid Argument

When I first started to read Chapter 3 about “What Is a Good Argument?” I thought that this chapter would be easy. At first the terms were confusing, but started to make sense. At first the terms were pretty complex considering that a valid argument doesn’t necessarily have to be a good argument. When I think of valid, I think of the argument as reasonable and being susceptible to being correct. A valid argument should hold no reason for doubt in its premises and conclusion. The text also states that a valid argument can’t have a premise that is true while the conclusion false at the same time. (Epstein) So the premise has to be true and the conclusion has to be true. According to the text, a strong argument is an argument that has the possibility of being false, but the premises make it very unlikely to be incorrect. An example of an everyday valid argument would be “Everyone who rides a bike on campus has to pedal the bike so that they can get to class. I have a bike so I have to pedal to get to class.” This is a valid statement because the premise is true and the conclusion is not false. Also there is no possible way that someone can get to class on campus their bike without pedaling. An example of an everyday strong argument would be “I have never seen or heard of a mountain taller than Mount Everest.” This type of question often occurs in the science classroom. A question that address whether something has been discovered or not. Although it maybe be possible that there is some mountain in the world or even in this Universe that is taller than Everest, it is highly unlikely.

The Test For a Good Argument

Usually if there is reason for doubt in an argument, that should give reason to believe that the argument is weak or false, especially if there is no substantial proof that supports the premise. An argument must not be faulty and should have little room for error or different possibilities. According to the Critical Thinking text, there are three main tests to check whether an argument is good. The three are the premises are plausible, the premises are more plausible than the conclusion, and the argument is valid or strong. A plausible premise is a claim that has good reason to be true. When a premise is more plausible than the conclusion, then the evidence and support of the premise should outweigh the evidence that the conclusion would be false. When an argument is valid or strong, then there should be little reason to believe that the claims made by the premise should not be true and strong enough to support the conclusion.

I have one example that comes to mind when I think of argument. I usually argue with my brother to see whether or not my mom is home. But we are often too lazy to go downstairs to check to see if she is home. So usually my argument is “My mom is always home when her van is parked at home. My moms van is in the driveway. Therefore, my mom is home.” The first premise is not more plausible than the conclusion. This sets up the second premise to fall down a slippery slope. The premises in this argument are very much plausible. However, this argument is weak because my mom could be out of the house by having someone pick her up. Or she could have switched cars with my dad and could have taken his car out. The argument fails all three tests.

The argument could be made stronger if I added more supporting premises. One example would be that when my mom is home, her car keys and purse are also placed on the table. My moms van is home and her car keys are placed on the table. This argument is much stronger because the premise gives more evidence to back up the fact that my mom is home without actually seeing that she is home. There is good reason to believe that my mom is home and the argument is much stronger than the last one. With these supporting premises, the premises are in fact plausible. However, it is still possible that my mom is out of the house. For example, she went out for a jog or she got picked up by her friend.
With possibilities such as these, this renders the argument weak, but not invalid.

The argument could be made even stronger if my mom were to swear that she would never leave the house without her keys and purse. The argument in full is, “ My mom is always home when her van is parked at home. My moms van is in the driveway. Her keys and purse are placed on the table. She swears that she would never leave the house without her purse and key. Therefore my mom is home.” The premises in this argument are plausible. They are also more plausible than the conclusion. There is also a possibility that the premises are true and the conclusion false, but they are very unlikely. This makes this argument strong. By adding more supporting premises, I created a strong argument that passed all three tests and is most likely true.

3. Vague Statements (Epstein)

The topic I will be talking about is vague sentences. We hear vague sentences everyday. Sometimes we hear it so much that we don’t even notice how vague they are. Sometimes I feel as if certain types of vague sentences are up for a listener’s interpretation, therefore whenever they hear a vague statement they don’t really see it as vague. One example that I think about is from the television show called “Everybody hates Chris.” One day a neighbor saw Chris’s neighbor Tasha giving him a kiss on the cheek for saving her from a rat that was in her room. When that neighbor asked if there was anything going on between Chris and Tasha, Chris responded by saying “Oh, you know how it is.” Well apparently that neighbor didn’t know how it was and suddenly rumors began to spread throughout the neighborhood about Chris and Tasha. Long story short, this ended up in an ugly confrontation between Chris and Tasha and between Chris's mom and Tasha's grandma. So what is to be learned from this incident? It is always good to be clear and concise in whatever you say so that you are not subject to misinterpretation. By avoiding being vague, you can save yourself a lot of trouble with others. So remember, clear and concise, because not everyone “knows how it is.”

2. Ambiguity

“Stay thirsty my friends.” What? Why? This is a vague statement given out by the “Most interesting man in the world.” But what qualifies him to be the most interesting man in the world? And why does he want us to stay thirsty? I recently saw the Dos Equis television commercial which showed the old dude with the beard asking all his viewers to stay thirsty. I have never seen this man but find him very intriguing and all of a sudden I want to be like him, and drink a Dos Equis too. This is a brilliant marketing scheme by Dos Equis in my opinion. But one question arises out of my mind, “Stay thirsty for what?” Stay thirsty for alcohol? Water? Stay thirsty physically? Or metaphorically? I guess this type of advertisement provokes a consumer to try the product. They ask themselves, “What’s so great about Dos Equis? Maybe I should try it and see what the fuss is about.” The most interesting man in the world is asking us to stay physically thirsty, but we are more psychologically or metaphorically thirsty to try this product. This is where the ambiguity lies because it can be interpreted in different ways.

Another quote or advertisement that millions of kids wear is Nike "Just Do It." Just do what? What exactly is "it"? here again is another brilliant marketing scheme that sells products. Most people don't know what the quote means but it sure sounds cool doesn't "it"? What I feel "just do it" means is in sports or any aspect of life you just push yourself to do whatever it is you need to do. Nike endorses a lot of top athletes that "Just do it" and push themselves everyday in their line of work. The ambiguity presents itself when the consumers asks themselves "Just do what?"

1. Objective and Subjective Claims

A subjective claim is a claim which relies on personal standards that not everyone will agree upon. A subjective claim is based on preference. One example of a subjective claim would be when my brother stated that Ford is a better car brand than Chevy. We often argue over this topic and My brother prefers Ford because he owns a Ford. I prefer Chevy because I use to own Chevys. There are some Ford models that are faster than Chevys and some Chevys faster than Fords. Many people prefer the design of the Ford Mustang Gt500 over the Corvette ZR1 and vice versa. Many factors such as design, extra accessories of the car, nostalgia, history, and much more contribute to peoples personal standards making this claim a subjective claim. This claim is subjective because we both prefer different brands based on our own personal standards. But from this subjective claim I can make an objective claim that the Corvette ZR1 is faster in the quarter mile then the GT500. But that all depends who is driving.
An objective claim is a claim which is based on fact or a set and defined standard. Usually an objective claim is a claim that cannot be argued against. One example of an objective claim is t SJSU is more and more classes aren’t available to students. This claim is agreed upon by everyone and is fact. There are many students that find it hard to get the classes they need. On the first day of school I saw a student who yelled “I HAVE NO CLASSES!” while I was on my way to class. Also, last semester one of my favorite professors lost his job. The statement about less classes being available is true because there is substantial proof to back it up. Also from this objective claim we can make a subjective claim about how students who receive financial aid don’t suffer from tuition being raised.
Objective and Subjective claims can help in determining what we are arguing about. Distinguishing between objective and subjective claims can help to make things a little clearer and help to make sense of vague statements.

Introduction

Hello hello. My name is Pat and I am a second year student at San Jose State University. I am a business major,concentration in management. I am however considering changing my concentration to Finance. I was born in Los Angeles but I grew up in San Francisco. I currently reside in San Jose during the weekdays, and weekends I go back home to my parents in SF. I am the type of person that likes to be productive, likes to stay organized, and is highly motivated. My interests are making money (without having a job), working out and exercising, hanging out with friends, and spending time with family. I also enjoy reading from time to time, usually self improvement books. I like to eat healthy, but I do have the occasional pig outs from time to time. I know I may sound pretty boring, but if you get to meet me in person (or continue to read more of my posts) then you will see that I'm pretty fun and I know how to have a good time.


My communication experience dates back to my elementary days. I was president of my school in 8th grade, and often dealt with the whole student body. In my high school days I was Rally Commissioner of my high school for 2 years and I would often speak in front of large crowds. At San Jose State I took a MCOM class called "Get internet famous" and I also took Comm 40 during a winter course. I was never really scared to speak in front of people, just remembering what I had to say always broke my confidence and usually made me end up stuttering, having really long pauses just to think, or a really long "uuuhhhhhhhh..." after what I had to say. I was also someone who would usually have a hard time making choices and I often find myself confiding in others just to come up with a decision. I hope I can learn a lot from this course. I hope that I can make better decisions, analyze a situation and pick the best possible choice of action, and being able to know what to say and when to say it. I am really looking forward to Comm 41 and I am very excited to take an online class. At least I can stay in bed!

Till next post.....