Repairing Arguments

The main reason for poor arguments is that the argument does not have the required premises. A premise is the support, that a argument needs.

An example would be "Miley Cyrus has a good voice. So Miley Cyrus should become a country singer."
There is a conclusion but there is no plausible premises to support the conclusion. To repair this argument, you can add "Miley Cyrus' voice has a rich country tone to it." Before it was just stated that she has a good voice, which is not really a supporting plausible premise for her to become a country singer. Just because she has a good voice does not mean she should be a country singer. Different voice suit different genres of music. Now with the new added premise, the conclusion is supported. Miley Cyrus should become a country singer because her voice has a rich country tone to it. The argument is now fixed because it has a plausible premise.

Mentor

We all heard of the word "mentor" before. A mentor is a person who acts as a force of influence like a role model. A mentor usually helps out a person with less experience a skills set. Mentors can be found in everyday life. At the work place, schools, or even at home.
There are four mentoring stages : initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition.
First is the initiation step, where the mentor and protege get introduced to one other. There should be a sense of keeping an open mind, ready to learn.
Second step is cultivation. Where the mentor  and protege get more  comfortable with one another and starts to bond, while maintaining a level of respect.
Third step is separation. Is just what it sounds like, it's when the mentor and the protege are separated from one another.
Final step is redefinition. It becomes accomplished when the mentoring is successful. The protege is now skilled and almost on the same level as the mentor.

I found this more interesting than useful. It reminded me of the leadership section, because leaders are in a sense also mentors.I just found the steps and stages really interesting. I never thought that much into the role  of a mentor.

Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion

A fallacy or fallacies, is a statement based on false claims. The book mentions several types of fallacies, including: the straw man, begging the question, shifting the burden proof, relevance, slanders, and ridicule. The straw man is a fallacy where someone criticize an augment by changing the "image"of the argument. The straw mans misrepresent an argument, giving it a different meaning. The main purpose is to create a different illusion to an argument, so the attacker can be distracted on the "straw man."

An example of the straw man fallacy would be:
Person 1: This album has a good rating because of the great track list of songs.
Person 2: The album is not good, just look at that bad album cover art.

This is an example of a straw man fallacy because it draws the attention away from the argument. The attention went from the "great track list of songs" to the "bad album cover." The fallacy created a false attention of argument.

ComplexArgument

1 neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.
2 People do not like living next door to such a mess.
3 He never drives any of them.
4 They look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place.
5 It is bad for the neighborhood and it will decrease property values.

Yes this is an argument,they are arguing that the neighbor should remove cars from his yard. The conclusion is My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard, which is supported by the claims. The four sub arguments for  the conclusion are sentences 2, 3, 4, and 5. The claims are strong but they are based mostly on opinions. "It is bad for the neighborhood and it will decrease property values," is the strongest claim. Additional premises could  be added, ones that reflect more upon facts not feelings and opinions. All of the claims/arguments support the conclusion.

This exercise was useful because it helped in learning how to break up an argument and analyze it. It also gave a clearer view on claims, valid premises, and conclusions. Knowing how to break down and argument and analyze, helps us in the future when writing our own arguments.

DEFINITIONS

A definition is what defines a word, what a word means. Each word has it's own intentions and meaning. So while having a conversation or an argument, it's important ti use the right words with the right definitions. Knowing the definition of strange words can expand your vocabulary. For every word,  there can be several definitions. If you take a look in the dictionary there can be multiple  definitions to define the word. It is a good idea to get a sense of the definition and use the word appropriately. The main role of the definition is to explain how to use a word. Knowing how to use a word will help you in arguments and writing stuff like essays. An argument that uses the wrong definition of a word will be considered a weak or false argument. Knowing the right definitions and the right ways to use the word would make the argument more effective and strong. I found the definition really useful, it's something that can help in all aspects of your daily life not just with arguments and writing.

Strong.Valid

Strong arguments is when the argument has strong believable premises but the conclusion may be false or hard to believe. So an argument with strong sources and support but with a false conclusion may be considered a strong argument. Where valid arguments are when the premises and the conclusion are both true. Valid arguments  can also be false, in that both the  premises and conclusion are false.

An example of a strong argument would be "Taylor has the flu. I spent the day with Taylor now I have the flu. I got the flu from Taylor." It is a strong argument because the premises are true and strong but the conclusion may be false. The person may or may not have gotten the flu from elsewhere.

An example  of a valid argument would be "The mall closes at 7PM on Mondays. Right now it's 8PM. The mall is currently closed." The Premises are all true and the conclusion is true, making it a valid argument.

2.1 Arguments

To be strong, an argument must have good premises. Premises are reasons that support the conclusion of the argument. There are three stated rules to follow when constructing an argument. The three requirements an argument must meet are: 1.) “The premises are plausible” 2.) “The premises are more plausible than the conclusion” and 3.) “If the argument is valid or strong.” 1.) Premises must be believe and realistic. Meaning people must buy into the reasons that you're selling. 2.) The conclusion can be false based on other's opinions. Meaning the conclusion is a subjective claim. 3.) The argument just has to be strong and supported.

An example would be: The concert will be rescheduled if it's raining. It's raining. The concert will be rescheduled.
The premises are plausible because if the it rains the concert would get reschedule and it's raining. The premises are realistic and there's no doubt about it. The argument is true because there's no doubt the concert is going to be rescheduled because it's fact that it's actually raining.

Line.Drawing.Fallacy

When making a statement in an argument or debate, a strong argument is always good to have. A fallacy is an mistake or error in delivering a clear message or reasoning. The "drawing the line" fallacy is an example of one of many fallacies. What is a line? A strong sharp concise edge. The line drawing fallacy uses false unclear statements or concepts to argue. If you can not provide a strong sharp line against an argument than the concept is considered invalid or false. In an argument, a point or idea should always be precise and clear. The line drawing fallacy basically is an argument with no clear message. When delivering an argument, the lines between the opposing sides of the argument should be clear. So when arguing, every statement should be precise to draw the lines between the opposing sides. To avoid the pitfalls of the line drawing fallacy, make sure your arguments are precise and evident enough to draw a boundary line of facts.

Vague.Sentence.

A vague sentence is a unclear sentence that can be interpreted in more than one way, when the speaker is unclear. A ambiguous sentence is a sentence that can be interpreted in very few ways.

An example of a vague sentence when my coworker at Hollister called for a stock check. He said "Can I get a stock check for the navy top please?" What came to my mind was "Which navy top was he talking about and what size?" There are multiple tops in the store that came in navy. Was it a shirt for Bettys or was it for Dudes? Was it the tank top by the windows or the the tank top in the back area. Or was it the navy cardigan or navy Polo's? The store is filled with navy tops. When asking for a stock check you have to be specific in style, size, and color. So there was no way to tell what he meant. If my coworker has asked for a stock check for the small navy cardigan than I would of known what to look for.

SUBJECTIVE.OBJECTIVE.

Subjective claim is more on the biased and opinionated side. Subjective claims are based on an individuals own feelings or opinions. A statement using judgment would be a subjective claim and is usually arguable. While objective claim is not opinionated, its more straight forward fact. Objective clams are based on facts and can not usually be argued.

An example of a subjective claim would be someone opinion or feelings towards something like a song or singer. My friend was like oh "Party in The USA" is such a bad song. That is a subjective claim because that is his opinion of the song. Someone else can argue that it is a really good song. I personally think it's a great song. Subjective claims in music usually have many sides and opinions. Music critics makes a lot of subjective “reviews” or claims because every critic has his own different response and feelings on a song or album.


An example of an objective claim would be when my friend claimed Taylor Swift's album Fearless was number 1 on the billboard for 11 nonconsecutive weeks. It's fact, you can't argue that its not true. It's not based on opinions or emotions, it is what can't be claimed as false.