Accepting and Rejecting Claims

In chapter 5, I found that the author’s discussion on accepting and rejecting claims based on appeals to authority to be the most interesting to me, as I do believe that many people fall into the trap of accepting claims without considering whether or not the claim was made by a true expert. According to Section B of Chapter 5, “We can accept a claim made by a reputable authority whom we can trust as an expert on [a] claim and who has no motive to mislead.” However, we cannot just accept a claim based on the mere fact that they are an authority figure because that would be a bad appeal to authority.

An example of accepting the claim by an authority we can trust:

We can accept a doctor’s claim about the type of prescription his patient needs to recover from his/her cold because he is an expert in this field and his motives are to help the patient. Therefore, in this clinic setting, we have no reason to reject the claim, as we can trust his expert opinion and that his motives are not to mislead.

An example of rejecting a claim by an authority:

We can’t always accept a claim just because the person is an authority figure, as this would be a bad appeal to authority.

For example: A doctor could claim that blow drying and straightening your hair leads to split ends. Although the doctor’s motive may not necessarily be to mislead, we cannot accept this claim just because he/she says so. The doctor is an expert authority, but he is not an expert on hair-care.  Therefore, we cannot accept this claim because in doing so, would be a bad appeal to authority.

In addition to these examples, there are also advertisements today that are geared to mislead their audiences into accepting their claims. Ultimately, it is up to us to use our reason to either accept or reject the claims by first considering the background of who is stating the claim and their motives behind it.

Advertising on the Internet

http://www.luckybrand.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-LBJ-Site/default/Default-Start?cm_mmc=Google-_-Search %3E Brand-_-General%3EGeneral%3EBroad-Broad-_-lucky&gclid=CKSBrODGxqsCFcwbQgodbm073w

For my Internet advertisement, I chose to discuss the ad for the popular brand of jeans called, Lucky Brand. According to this advertisement, Lucky Brand is America’s favorite and finest pair of jeans. We should all buy a pair today.

It can also noted that this advertisement definitely did not imply the conclusion of the ads promotion, as it tells us, “buy a pair,” “do it today,” which is different then other companies who often have unstated conclusions.

From my own personal experience, I can say that my two pairs of Lucky Brand jeans are my favorite, since they both look and feel like a fine quality pair. However, even though I categorize Lucky Brand jeans as my own personal favorite, I can easily reject this advertisement’s claim. The reason that I can reject this claim is because of my other experiences and observations that I have made in life. I know that not everyone believes that Lucky Brand jeans are America’s favorite and finest; if they were, wouldn’t everyone in American own a pair? They certainly don’t. People are wearing all different kinds of jeans that they believe offer them the most comfort and quality. In addition, Lucky Brand also may not be America’s favorite pair of jeans to purchase because they aren’t always cheap. America does not like expensive. So ultimately, we can reject the advertisements claim that we should buy America’s favorite and finest Lucky Brand blue jeans since its premises appear to be false based on my personal experience.

Repairing Arguments

Example of an argument:

My dance teacher was a professional ballet dancer.  She has been involved in the world of ballet for over 50 years. Therefore, I would trust her advice on what type of point shoes I should purchase for my ballet class.

When evaluating this argument, we must first decide whether or not we can reason with the argument presented. By the Principle of Rational Discussion we can assume that the dance teacher knows “about the subject under discussion” as the first and second premises show that she must be an expert on ballet related issues. We must also assume that the argument is intended to reason well and that the person who is presenting the argument isn’t lying about the facts presented. If we can do that, then we can repair the argument by either adding on or deleting plausible premises to make the argument stronger. After further evaluating this argument, we can find that we can repair the argument to make it stronger. We make an argument stronger and more plausible for the readers by either adding or deleting a premise or conclusion, but we only do this when we believe that it will make the argument better. “We only repair when it is needed.” In this case, we could add the premise, “Anyone who has had 50 years of ballet experience could give you expert advice on all questions concerning ballet.” This is a premise that is “plausible and would seem plausible” to the person reading the argument and would therefore make the argument stronger. Overall, this argument has become stronger with the added on premise as it gives the reader a valid reason to trust that my dance teacher would give good advice on ballet related issues such as what type of point shoe to purchase.

Negotiating Effectively

Negotiating Effectively

According the Group Communication Book, the act of negotiating can occur between two businesses or more as well as within a single organization and the most common form of negotiation is compromise.

Negotiations within an organization can include:

Negotiating working hours. (If I work the night shifts this weekend, could I have next weekend off)

Negotiating vacation time. (If I give up some of my sick days, could have more vacation time?)

Trading off responsibilities. (If you get the boss coffee today, I’ll do your paperwork)

Most often than not, comprising while negotiating is the goal that most people want to achieve. However, you cannot always expect a compromise to take place because what you negotiate has to be appropriate. What this means is you have to be realistic in your comprise. For example, if you fully believe that you deserve a raise, then try to negotiate with your boss till you reach a compromise. That is an appropriate situation. In an inappropriate situation would be one in which you are asking more for less.  For example: I want a raise even though I never show up to work to work on time. This is an unrealistic goal and could even sway your boss to fire you.

Another alternative to compromising is brainstorming.  The process of brainstorming involves formulating alternate ideas that would appeal to both you and your boss. For example: You could say to your boss, “I didn’t take any sick days last year and I was wondering if I could use some of those days for vacation time this year.” You could include in your compromise that you are ahead on your charts and have been working overtime as well. If the boss says, “you can have an extra two days this year of work off,” it’s best to close the deal or suggest a new negotiation.  It is never a good idea to test your boss so “suggesting alternate solutions is often an effective negotiation strategy” (O’Hair/O’ Weimann)

The 5 Key Strategies for Negotiating

1)   Always listen to the person you are negotiating with. In order to present them an effective argument you must know their argument and reasons as well.

2)   Understand the other person’s feelings and belief.

3)   Ask questions about the other person’s argument. Who, What, When, Where, Why.

4)   Be opened minded. If you come into the negotiating without settling for less than what you are asking, you are likely to not reach a compromise.

5)   Be calm and rational. Do not lose your temper.

Content Fallacies

Explain the Fallacy in your own words. Give a real world example that you heard in the past.

Content Fallacy

In the Epstein book, we discover that there are “many arguments that are bad because they use or require for repair a false or dubious premise” (Epstein 201) and when we have some reason to believe that there is an error in an argument we refer to the argument as a fallacy.

There are many different examples of Content Fallacies in our Epstein Book; however, I chose to reflect on the “bad appeal to common belief fallacy.”

The bad appeal to common belief fallacy is a fallacy that affects humans both young and old.  People fall victim to the bad appeal of common belief all the time when the chose to believe or do what is considered the popular thing in society.

For example, women in America were not always considered equal to men.  It was the common belief that a women’s role in society was in the home and nowhere else. At the time, almost all men believed that women should be homemakers and because almost all of them shared this similar belief, they didn’t doubt themselves that they could be wrong. In other words, because a majority of them believed that a women’s place was in the home then they assumed that this popular belief must be true. However, this was a bad appeal to common belief because as we observe today, women can benefit society in more ways than one.

Another example of the bad appeal to common belief fallacy is when teenagers fall into the trap of believing that drinking is a good thing at parities because it loosens them up and makes them more sociable. They believe that because everyone is doing it, then it must be a good thing for them to do too. However, this is a bad appeal to common belief because drinking isn’t the best thing to do at a young age.  Just because you’re friends are doing it doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing.  You’re brain is still developing and you could damage cells in your frontal lobe.  Drinking could also lead to health problems or addiction in the future so even if it’s the popular thing to do, that doesn’t mean you should do it too.

Complex Arguments

For each exercise below, analyze the structure by answering the following:

Argument? Yes.

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 4 and leak all over the place. 5 It is bad for the neighborhood, 6 and it will decrease property value. 7

Conclusion: My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.

Additional Premises needed?

My neighbor has a lot of old and beat up cars in his yard. a

They leak all over the place. 5.

There are many children that play in that neighborhood. b

They could be exposed to the leaking chemicals. c

Certain chemicals are bad for their health. d

Any bad chemical exposed to children is a threat to their health and should be taken away. e

My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the old cars in his yard 1 because they leak certain chemicals and any chemical that is bad for a child’s health should be confiscated. f

Identify any subargument:

C and D support statement E. 5, C, D, and E yield F. You can delete sentence 6 and 7. Sentence 2 isn’t particularly necessary either, so you don’t need to include that.

Good Argument?

After reconstructing the argument, I believe that it has become an invalid strong argument. The conclusion is plausible to the premises because any chemical that isn’t good for a child’s health should be confiscated in their presence.  All of the premises link to support the conclusion making it a good argument.

Afterward

I found this assignment to be somewhat of a challenge personally. After doing the assignment, I feel that I have a better understanding of how to make an argument stronger. You really have to make sure all your premises will link and support your final conclusion in order for the argument to be good and make sense! I feel like I could now more easily identify whether an argument is good or not after doing this assignment so it was definitely useful for me.

TIme Pressure

Dealing With Time Pressure in Groups

In college it seems like time is always an issue, which is why I’ve decided to talk about avoiding time pressures. Chapter three in the Essential Guide to Group Communications Book talks about how time pressures can affect the outcome a group decision in two ways: planning and leadership styles.

Planning to Avoid Time Pressures

We’ve all learned in college that it takes good planning and coordinating to produce things such as A worthy essays in our college courses. Our teachers give us a time limit to write the essay and it is up to us to plan when we will write the essay and how we’ll coordinate our ideas so that the essay will be good. Sometimes if we don’t plan out our time effectively we experience time pressure, which may cause us to write the essay but it’s not as good as it could have been (C worthy paper). This same idea applies to good decision-making in groups since the best decisions are made when we plan and coordinate our time and ideas to complete a task both efficiently and effectively together. 

For example: If a group A has 2 minutes to answer a complex math equation and group B has an unlimited amount of time, Group B will probably figure out the equation over Group A because they have more time to collaborate and solve the problem together.

Using Leadership Styles to Avoid Time Pressures

In my opinion, every group needs a leader in order for a task to become completed. There are four different types of leadership: Authoritarian – the leader makes the decision himself without help from group members. Consultative – the leader listens to others opinions and then makes the final decision himself. Participative – There is a leader, but the group makes the decision. Laissez Faire – there is no direct leadership. There are many different reasons why a leader might decide his leadership tactic when working in a group and sometimes “the style a group leader uses is dependent on time” (O’Hair/Weimann).

For example: If a leader chooses to use participative but finds himself in a situation in which there is no time for the group to make a decision, he’ll have to switch to authoritarian. However; if time is not an issue, I do believe that participative leadership is the best method in making group decisions in our groups.

Important to Remember:

There are 3 ways a group can avoid time pressures to make effective decisions:

1)   Taking polls in a group can save time. Ex. Everyone in this room who likes topic A raise your hand. Now everyone in this room who likes topic B raise their hand. The most hands wins and time has been saved when making the decision.

2)   Time Limits: Giving each member a time limit in your group. Ex. Group member 1: You have five minutes to pitch your ideas on Tuesday. Group member 2: You’ll have two minutes afterwards to give your opinion on his pitch.

3)   The group doesn’t have to decide: If the group is concerned that time pressure might affect their decision, don’t make one at all. Instead, “postpone reaching a conclusion.” (O’Hair/ Wiemann)