Vague Generalities

In Chapter 8, Epstein mentions vague generalities. Vague generalities occur when we make a claim without specifying a precise number. Epstein says that these words are too vague to figure in valid argument. Most of these words are too ambiguous to be used in a claim. Some words that can make a vague claim are all, almost, many, most, a lot of, some, a few, and very few.  

Example:

A lot of basketball players are tall

John is basketball player

So John is tall

The premise gives us good reason to make the claim. The problem is that the conclusion doesn’t follow with any exclusion. This is still al weak claim. We don’t know that john is tall just because a lot of basketball players are tall. It’s only a few occasions where a vague generality can make a strong argument. It would be better specify better in order to make the claim a valid claim.

Assignment #1

The first assignment was very useful for many reasons. Working as a group for an online class wasn’t an easy thing to do. Everyone had their own agenda, and we had to adjust our schedules to make sure we could get our assignment done. The first assignment was very interesting. It was harder than the second assignment, but I still found it more useful. We had to establish a leader in the group who managed what everyone in the group would do. Thanks to the leader taking initiative, we were able to get our paper done. Our method for getting our paper done was very effective. The first one was also more useful because we applied what we learned in class to do our assignment. .After getting our first group assignment done; we were better prepared for the second assignment. We each knew how we would contribute to get our papers done. 

General Claims

In Chapter 8, Epstein talks about general claims and their contradictories. Epstein describes general claims as  how we assert something about all or part of a collection .There are four words in general claims that can be used in arguments  all, some, no, and only. All means “every single one, no exceptions”. Some means “at least one”. No means “not even one. Only means “no more than”. An example would be all baseball players use steroids to enhance their performance. This claim isn’t true because not every baseball player has tested positive for having steroids in their system. Just because a few baseball players have tested or admitted to using steroids doesn’t mean that every baseball players doing it. Contradictory claims reject the claim is made, you must have a good argument for your contradictory claim to be valid. There is a way to contradict this argument. An example would be, no baseball players use steroids to enhance their performance. 

Free Post

A concept from the reading this weak I found interesting is Chapter 6’s compound claims and “or” Claims. The book describes a compound claim as “one composed of other claims, but which has to be viewed as just one claim.  The book also discusses alternatives. Alternatives “are the claims that are the parts of an “or” claim. The “or” links two claims to make a compound claim. For instance “I will drive the Nissan or ill drive the Toyota.

Another concept in chapter 6 the book discussed that I found interesting was the contradictory of a claim. The book states that the contradictory of the claim as “one that has the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances”. The contradictory is sometimes labeled as the negation of a claim. An example would be Peyton Manning isn’t the best quarterback in the NFL, Tom Brady is”.  A contradictory claim would be “Peyton Manning is the best quarterback in the NFL not Tom Brady. 

Chapter 7

A concept from chapter 7 I found interesting is the concept of how to refute an argument. According to Epstein the direct ways of refuting an argument is to show at least one of the premises is dubious, the argument isn't valid or strong, or that the conclusion is false. Only one of these three has to be shown to directly refute an argument. For instance, “The only reason why Kobe Bryant Scores a lot of points is because he ball hogs, if he didn’t ball hog he wouldn’t score as many points”. You can refute this by saying “Kobe doesn’t score a lot of points because he ball hogs, he picks and chooses his shots wisely, he distributes to his teammates throughout the game, and he even leads his team in assist”. The Argument has been refuted because there is evidence proving that one of the premises in the argument is dubious.

False Dilemma

A concept from Chapter 6 that I found useful was the concept of False Dilemma. Epstein Describes False dilemma as “a bad use if excluding possibilities where the “or” claim is false or implausible”. The “or” claim is called a false dilemma sometimes. We allow ourselves to think that we can only choose between two options.

False Dilemmas follow this pattern:

1. Either claim A is true or claim B is true. A and B could both be false

2.  Claim B is false

3.  As a result claim A is true

Example:

John:  Carl and I are going on a double date at the movies tomorrow with Simone and Mary

Carl: I didn’t say I would

John: You don’t have a girlfriend already do you Carl?

John assumed that since Carl wouldn’t go on the double date with him that he must already have a girlfriend already. There are many other reason why Carl didn’t want to go on the double date with John. It is not fair to assume that having a girlfriend is the only reason why he wouldn’t go with him.

What I Found Interesting About This Weeks Readings

 Something I found interesting this week’s reading was common mistakes in evaluating premises. More Specifically, bad appeals to authority and mistaking a person for the claim. Epstein states that bad a s a mistake to accept a claim as a true solely because a lot of other people believe it. Mistaking the person for the claim as a mistake to reject a claim solely because of who said it. An example of bad appeal to common belief would be a Bowflex commercial. The Commercial advertises their Bowflex and claims that the Bowflex will make you stronger and bigger, you will also see your results much faster if you use this product. This is example. They show many people who claim to have used this product and said that it worked well. The problem is there is no evidence to show that those people used that product. Those people could have already been big before they appeared on the commercial.  People will buy this product thinking that they will have the same, but they don’t really know if the product worked for the people in the commercial.

Advertisement

http://network4g.verizonwireless.com/#/4g-network-verizon-wireless


The advertisement I have chose is by Verizon Wireless. Verizon Wireless claims to have the fastest and most advanced 4g network in America. This is not a good argument because there is no evidence to prove the claim that their 4g network is the fastest and most advanced in America.  Epstein chapter 5 states that for an argument to be good there must be a good reason to believe the premise, the premise are more plausible than the conclusion, and the argument must be valid or strong.  Many other networks claim to have faster networks also, so should I believe Verizon over any other network? There must be evidence provided to prove that your 4g network is better.  Someone who hasn’t had Verizon before wouldn’t be able to tell if the claim is really true or not.I cannot accept the claim because of lack of evidence. Verizon needs to be more specific if they want their argument to be good

Needs some repair...

This week’s discussion covered violating the principal of a rational discussion. Many arguments are not strong and are invalid because there is a part of the argument that needs to be repaired. They can be repaired by adding a premise or conclusion to make the argument stronger. An argument such as “Kevin Durant is good at basketball because he has many awards” needs to be repaired for many reasons. It is not a strong or valid argument. Just because Kobe has awards does not mean he is good at basketball. The awards could have been given to him for different reasons bedsides his basketball skills. The argument can be repaired by saying “Kevin Durant is good at basketball because he has many awards for his performance on the basketball court”. The more specific the arguer is the better.Now there is a plausible premise and the argument is strong and valid.