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.”