Vague Generalities

One section of Ch. 8 that caught my eye that has not yet been discussed was the section on vague generalities. This sections discusses the direct ways of reasoning with almost all and arguing backwards with almost all. Using the words "all" and "some" have lots of ambiguity in them but with the skills that we have acquired we are a lot to determine if the argument is valid or not. When we look at the premises it gives us a good reason to believe the conclusion of each even though the conclusion doesn't follow. When using the direct way of reasoning with almost all, almost all are S and P, a is S so a is P; almost all S are P+a is S--> a is P. Arguing backwards with almost all, almost all S are P, a is P so a is S; almost all S are P+ a is P--> a is S. At first this section was quite confusing for me but after i read and re-read the section a few times it all started to click and makes much more sense.

Major Course Assignment

I really have enjoyed working on my part of our second group assignment were we are able to look at a group organization and dig through it looking for certain aspects such as the concealed claims or the social issue that they represent. This also happens to be my part that I am working on for the paper, which is identifying the concealed claims and also identifying the social issue. My group and I chose to look at the organization D.A.R.E which stands for Drug Abuse Resistance Education. I have never had the opportunity to look this closely at an organization before and I have learned a lot along the way. I really like the fact that we have a sheet of things that we are looking for in this project, i think this allows us all to use our skills that we are learning throughout the year and show them during this paper.

General Claims

In chapter 8 of the Epstein book chapter 8 talks about many useful ideas that are helpful with communication. In section A which is General Claims and Their Contradictories they discuss how some arguments can sound valid but when in reality they are not. We find out the uses of "All" and "Some" as well as "No" and "Only". All of these words have meanings when you use them in a statement. An example that we all have heard one time or another in our lives is "All girls are drama queens", now all is meaning all girls, with no exceptions but we all know in reality not all girls are drama queens. I know in my life I have definitely met a few girls who are but I can safely say not everyone is. Another example using a different world would be "Some girls are drama queens". This statement is a little bit better because it is focusing on a small group of girls who are "drama queens". Some means at least one but not all so this is a much better word to use instead of all in this statement.

Effective Communication

In CH. 4 of our Group Communication Book I found a section on "Developing Effective Communication Skills In Organizational Communication". In this part of the chapter it talks about how communication should go about and a few ways that we communicate with each other. In any situation with life you are going to come into contact with someone who is superior to you and making sure you know how to communicate with them is key. There are several techniques that we call Communication Channels and knowing how to use them can be a great tool in life. In the book they introduce us to two channels, formal and informal. Formal channels are the communication paths established along the hierarchical lines of an organization. Informal channels refer to the "grapevine" as well as to unauthorized communication between two or more persons in an organization. A Vertical Hierarchy can be used to show how the lines of communication stream downward. It starts at the top with The Board of Directors, then the CEO's, President, then branching off into four branches you have the vice president of operations, vp of finance, vp of manufacturing, and the vp of sales. There are more branches going down, next are the directors and managers and lastly the workers. I though this section was interesting and could be highly beneficial to me later on in my life. Knowing how to communicate and how to communicate properly is a great life skill to have and use.

Misleading Advertisements

We all have heard of the brand Calvin Klein, first we associated it with clothing but now they sell anything from underwear to cologne for men. But is cloths and cologne the only things that they sell? From the looks of this add sex seems to be the number one priority and jeans are number two. As society grows and the demand for products changes the way we advertise it changes as well. Everyone has heard of the phrase "sex sells" and in this day and age it is very true. The claim being portrayed in this argument is buy Calvin Klein jeans and it will make you feel sexy and desirable. When looking at this argument you have the option of accepting the claim as true, you feeling sexy when you wear Klein jeans, reject the claim as false, or suspend judgment of the claim. Something that we all need to realize is just because we wear this type of clothing there is no guarantee we will feel sexy in them, did we just waste $100 on a pair of jeans that we though would make us feel better about our selves? As a young person living in this society we need to realize that these advertisements are out there to trick us, learning from our own judgments and experiences is the most important tool we can use.

Repairing an Argument

Most times when a person states an argument they make the mistake of leaving an important section out. These arguments are usually repairable but sometimes others are UN-repairable. In Chapter 4 of our Epstein book they explain the proper way to repair an argument. There are three ways techniques you can use to help repair your argument. The first is the argument becomes strong or valid, second is the premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person, and third the premise is more plausible than the conclusion. An example of an argument the needs repairing is All little brothers are annoying. So Jane’s little brother is annoying. The claim is that “Jane’s little brother is annoying.” But my argument is still weak because Jane’s brother could be an exception. He could be one of the best little brothers, leaving Jane alone when friends are over and not bothering her when she is trying to study or talking on the phone. This argument could not be repaired because the premise we would need to add still makes the argument weak.