Useful concept : Fallacies

         I felt that the concept of fallacies was really useful. Every single person in this world would have used a fallacy once in his or her lifetime. The statement that I used is a fallacy in itself. When i said "every singe" I was referring to every single human being in this world, but when you look at it, babies are human beings who still have not even started speaking. So there is no possible way they can come up fallacious statements / arguments. So, to re-word that sentence, most of the people have used fallacious arguments sometime in their lives. This is a really important concept to understand because one can easily get convinced with other's conclusion, especially when they are not providing enough or credible evidence.
           In addition, the words the use to form the argument really shapes its meaning. Being a business major, it is very important for me to understand the fallacies that is being used against me. After understand in depth about fallacies, I can deal with fallacies and question them back if they do try to persuade me with a fallacious argument / statement.

Most Favorite and Least Favorite

This class was a really good experience for me. The most favorite part about this class was, how we were given flexibility with our homework and other projects. On the other hand the least favorite part about this class was the fact that we had to communicate through e-mails, texts, and phone calls instead of communicating face to face.
I believe that the class can be improved in the form of having more in person conversations with the teacher. This will help us clarify more doubts in person, get immediate feedback. I also would have wanted more, clear details on the various assignments given. The directions were a little vague and unclear at times. It confused our group a lot of times.
Other than these small hiccups, the class had many other positives. The class improved my communication skills and taught me valuable lessons that will help me in the future.

What I have learned :

I have learned a lot over the semester. I got myself familiarized with a lot of concepts / skills such as, fallacies, leaderships, facilitating others, reasoning, and group work. Over the course of this semester, I learned how frequently people use fallacies in their argument to convince other people. Another interesting concept that I can relate to the real word is how we reason with others, using various types and methods of reasoning to make our argument strong and valid.
Apart from textbook concepts, I learned how to work with a group, communicate with them (mostly through e-mail and texts), direct a small group and how to take the initiative. It was a very tough challenge for me to help and talk with others via e-mail, but the way this class had been designed has helped me improve my communicating skills. I also learned key information relating to managing a small group. the facilitation project was a really good project as it helped me act and improvise according to the situation.
There were a lot of other concepts that I learned, but I felt that these were the important ones that will help me in the future.

Chapter 15 : Cause and Effect

I will be talking about Particular causes, generalizations and general causes.  there is no particular definition behind the concept. It is just laid on top of the basic definition of a cause and effect incident. Here, this example should clarify this concept :

A particular cause :
                  The sniper shot him at his heart; the man died on the spot.
This example shows how a cause, which happens once, creates an effect which also happens once. Now, in order to establish a relationship between these two incidents, we must look at this from various other possibilities. For instance, if the man shot him with a pistol gun, or a shot gun; or the distance between the two men. If these cases are tried, all these shots would kill the other.

Now, we can generalize this statement by stating that : A bullet shot at anyone's heart, will definitely lead to their death, unless they are wearing a bullet proof vest.

 This is basically what a particular cause and effect, and a generalization of causes is.

Mission Critical

This website has a lot of familiar concepts that we have studied during this semester. I took the freedom to go over the ones that we have not yet covered, or I personally have not read. For example, I went deductive reasoning in Conjunctions and Disjunctions. In other words, arguments with "or" or "and". I learned that during the "or" claims, you accept one case or the other, or you reject it all together. On the contrary, an "and" claim is where, you would accept all the cases, or reject one. Another concept that I went over was the "two wrong" fallacy. The "two wrong" appeal basically states that when a wrong action is performed based on another wrong action, it is called the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. An example for this fallacy would be,
Sam borrow's his best friend's watch, but never returns it.
Sam keep the watch with him , and does it give it back to his best friend.
Sam tells himself that his best friend would have done the same to him.
I learned a lot more concepts from this website. It provided loads of exercise problems, and clear definitions with examples. It was easy to reiterate the purpose and the definitions of various concepts.

Mission : Critical ( Causation)

This website was the same exact website that I used to answer the previous week's blog post. This website really helped me understand the clear definition and meaning behind causation. The example was really simple for me to analyze and incorporate. The website had a couple of general rules that really help me, like

1. The cause must precede the event in time. On one hand, arguments that have the effect before the cause are examples of the relatively rare fallacy of reverse causation. One the other, arguments whose only proof of causation is that the effect followed the cause are examples of fallacious post hoc reasoning.
2. Even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation. Other possible explanations for such a strong correlation include coincidence, reversed causation, and missing something that is the cause of both the original "cause" and and its purported "effect. ( Introduction to causal agreements ).    

Another helpful insight this website provided me was the practice option ( exercises ). The exercises just reinforced the basic concepts and gave me a wide spectrum of the various concepts within causation. 

Judging analogies

Judging analogies are basically analogies / arguments that are made without proper premises. In other words, your supporting claims do not completely back up your conclusion, hence, the other person ends up claiming that your claim is weak. In the words of Epstein, "one side of the analogy is like, the other side is too vague to use as  a premises."

For example :
An elephant eats anywhere between 200 to 400 pounds per day; on the other hand, humans on average consume anywhere between 3000 to 4000 calories per day.

So, does this mean that, all of the elephants combined eat more per day than all of the humans combined ?
Of course not !  This is an example of an argument trying to argue that what is true of an individual is true for the group . Furthermore, the type of food / diet a human follows is not clear. It would certainly differ. Other details for the elephant are if the elephant is a wild one, or a tamed one. Therefore, we can conclude that, with this as the example, the differences between the units of an individual and the group is too large to analyze.

Causal Reasoning

I had a tough time coming with a proper explanation for causal reasoning. I was able to understand the the purpose of such a reasoning. I searched for variousexplanations for the reasoning and found a really interesting one. "These causal arguments, then, follow the form of an inductive argument with one important exception: whereas an inductive argument carries as part of its second premise the implication that there is otherwise no significant difference, these causal arguments carry the implication that there is only one significant difference" (Introduction to Causal Arguments). I could easily relate this with the example I gave in my previous post :


My example :


A car is traveling at speed limit, and suddenly swerves and hits another car trying to avoid a kid who was threatened to run across the road.  The people in car can argue that, the kid who ran across them caused them to change directions unexpectedly. The kid can argue that, his friends threatened him which caused him to do that action. 


Hence, for every single action there is only one and only one cause for that action. For the kid, he was threatened; for the car, it was the kid. That particular definition really helped me understand this concept clearly. 

Reasonings

Here are a list of examples for the different types of reasonings :

1 ) deductive reasoning : 

All cows are mammals

All mammals have hearts

So, all cows have hearts

2 ) Inductive reasoning : 

Pau Gasol is an excellent basketball player. So, his children are going to be excellent basketball players as well.

3 ) Analogy by reasoning : 

Assume that you are going to go buy a brand new car. You talk with your friends who recently bought new cars. They tell you that, they are delighted with the new cars they bought from New Cars. So, you are likely to conclude by analogy that, if you buy a new car from New Cars, you will be delighted as well.

4 ) Causal reasoning 

A car is traveling at speed limit, and suddenly swerves and hits another car trying to avoid a kid who was threatened to run across the road.  The people in car can argue that, the kid who ran across them caused them to change directions unexpectedly. The kid can argue that, his friends threatened him which caused  him to do that action. 

5 ) Criteria Reasoning :

Chef 1 : This dish must taste delicious . 

Chef 2 : Then why don't we add some bay leaves, and cloves ?

6 ) Reasoning with examples :

In order for you to be successful in life, you must work a minimum of 10,000 hours in that field; Just like how Bill Gates and Kobe Bryant did (Gladwell , Outliers ). 

7 ) Argument with signs :

Wayne is walking with out his crutches and is able to move his foot in different directions; He is showing signs of recovery. 

Appeal to Spite

An appeal to spite is a type of appeal to emotion. An appeal to spite involves a person trying to reach his objective without providing evidence or support for his claim. According to the Encyclopedia, an appeal to spite is " An `appeal to spite` (also called `argumentum ad odium`) is a logical fallacy in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude in the opposing party. Instead of an argument being made with supporting facts or evidence, the argument is made that you should or should not do something simply out of spite. " 


Here is an example for this fallacy :


X : Oh wow, Y gave an excellent presentation. I am going to vote for Y's presentation. I think she deserves the trophy. 
Z : Yes, I agree, but do not remember that Y did not select your presentation last year ?
X : Oh yea ! You are right, I change my mind. I will not vote for Y.


This is a simple example for an appeal to spite. This is purely based on getting revenge, without providing evidence or support to the claim. Hence, as Epstein states "an appeal to spite often invokes the "principle" that two wrongs make a right" (Epstein , 193). On the contrary, there are times when a claim that evokes a feeling of spite can be judged as an true, factual evidence. 

Advertisement : Appeal to Fear !

An appeal to fear is supposed to instill a quick flash of fear in you regarding the situation. The ad that I found on the internet did create a moment of fear. The way the company used its advertising strategy to use the appeal to fear, is very well done.

http://www.penn-olson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/WWF-22.jpg

The ad basically depicts an action that has a negative effect on us, and in this case the planet as well. This ad caught my attention, and it made me believe that, the way we humans are dealing with this issue is wrong. This is exactly how an appeal to fear ad should do. On the contrary, there are a couple of view points, which can be noted as ineffective. This might lead people to jump over the purpose of the message. But, this ad does not have as many ineffective ways to grab the attention of the public. So, this ad was simple, clear, effective, and good.

Appeal to Emotion :

An appeal to emotion is " an argument with a prescriptive conclusion, can be good or can be bad. Being alert to the use of emotion helps clarify the kinds of premises needed in such an argument, so we can more easily analyze it" (Epstein, 194). So, an appeal to emotion is used to change / manipulate others' emotions in order to gain their acceptance towards our claim. In other words, the way one succeeds in achieving this, is when the use of strong emotions are being substituted for evidence to back up claims. 

Many well known organizations, brands, and companies use this appeal to gain power, and support. Here is one such example :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eMmcMK_3Ao

This ad, shows there is no evidence to show that the Porche is really as good as they say it is. Instead, the bring out this kid, and make you feel sorry and attached to the kid in the ad. 

The example is also a way of appealing to pity.  In India, appealing to pity is probably the most common means of  convincing people. I particularly find this appeal appealing because, it is very easy to change a person's emotion, than to change their rational thoughts and ideas. In addition, emotions can be easily changed especially when facing depression. 

Further Discussion : Fallacies

I had a tough time dealing with fallacies. There are so many fallacies that we need to know, in order to avoid using fallacies in our arguments. Furthermore, the textbook does not make it any easier for us to learn these fallacies, as it states / defines these fallacies in just one sentence. This is the first time I'm learning about fallacies, and clearly the textbook did not help me. Most of the fallacies are confusing, and closely related to each other. Thus, I used a lot of outside sources in order to identify and familiarize myself with fallacies.
 This was a great source for understanding fallacies :

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

It provides minute details, and problems each fallacy has in it. It gives us examples, and tips to identify different fallacies. This website also helps us identify fallacies in our own work. I was glad to have looked into this web page, cause most of my assigned part on our papers, was to identify fallacies.

Here is an example of one of the fallacies they mention :

Red herring

Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

Example: "Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well." Let's try our premise-conclusion outlining to see what's wrong with this argument:

Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.

Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do.

When we lay it out this way, it's pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent—the fact that something helps people get along doesn't necessarily make it more fair; fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many issues do you see being raised in your argument? Can you explain how each premise supports the conclusion?

Assignment

           Both the assignments were very helpful and knowledge gaining experiences. The first assignment was a little more challenging in the context of getting to know each other, and what each member's strengths and weaknesses are. The second assignment was trying to use those strengths and weaknesses to our advantage. For example, one of our group members is really good with the computers. We asked her to assist us on small problems we faced, like margin adjustments and formating the texts. We had another member who would speak just one or two sentences and make an impact with just that one sentence. The knowledge that I gained out of these two assignments was plenty. I learned how to format a paper in APA style, and learned about a global, social organization. Regardless of all these important concepts, the most important and valuable concept that I was able to enhance was my communication skills. Our group met only a handful of times to get our information together, but most of our discussions would take place either via email or texts. It was also a great opportunity to take a small leadership role. Everybody had their own parts and were leaders for themselves. It was a very enjoyable experience.  

Chapter 8 : General Claims

General claims are basically claims that broaden the view point for the arguer's subject. In this context, a subject can be referred to as "all" or "some". I shall give you an example regarding these two situations below :
Using "All" :
Claim : All parrots are Birds.
This is a valid claim. This claim also generalizes and broadens the subject. This claim does not have a contradictory. The contradictory to this argument would be : No parrots are birds ( which is false ). Hence, there is no contradictory to this claim.

Here is an example for a "some" claim :
Claim : Some human beings have 6 fingers.
Contradicting claim : Some human beings have 5 fingers.

Epstein, in chapter 8 also talks about the reasoning in a chain with "all"
The author states that, only if a particular format is followed, then this method of reasoning will end up valid.
The format to be followed is :
All "S" are "P"
All "P" are "Q"
So all "S" are "Q"

Here is an example for this method :

All Corollas are cars
All cars are automobiles
So all Corollas are automobiles

Now, I shall leave you guys to think about this one :
All eggs are from chickens
All chickens are from eggs
So all eggs are from eggs
        ?????????

Conditionals

I am sure most of you have had a conditional task, or a question put forward to you. That is, when someone uses an "if" in their argument, or statement, it basically implies a conditional.

The textbook defines a conditional claim as "a claim, which can be rewritten as an "if...then..." claim that must have the same truth - value. In a conditional claim, "If A, then B", the claim A is the antecedent, and the claim B is the consequent" (Epstein, 121).

So, a conditional claim follows a pattern of "If A, then B", but here is the fun part; a claim does not have to state an "if" or a "then" in order to make it a conditional claim. These key words can be implied, and looked at as a conditional. For example :

" You do my homework, I won't tell on you".

Here the antecedent is - If you do my homework

and the consequent is -I won't tell on you

Chapter 7 : Counter Arguments

         Chapter seven is all about how to counter argue.  Counter arguments are claims that can derived only if the original argument has support. If one can back up his / her claims, to refute and reject an opposing claim, then that conversation is heavily relied on counter arguing. One makes a counter argument, because the other believes that the original claim is false, and that the premises are weak and lack support. Counter arguments can go back and forth as many times as they want in order to prove the other's premises and claim is false, but with supporting claims of their own. If there is a lack of supporting claims, then there would be no reason to believe in the claims or counter arguments that are put forward.
           Here is one of the ways to counter argue with - Refuting Directly. Refuting directly is a simplistic way to counter argue. This method involves the counter argument to "show that at least one of the premises is dubious ; show that the argument isn't valid or strong ; show that the conclusion is false" (Epstein, 159).
          Another method to counter argue is by reducing to the absurd. The book states that "to reduce to the absurd is to show that at least one of several claims is false or dubious, or collectively they are unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them" (Epstein, 150).

Chapter 6 : Compund Claims :

      This chapter was a confusing chapter. I learnt a couple of key concepts from this chapter. Its overall objective was basically to tell us that, claims can be joined by key words and made into a single, strong claim. Such a claim would be know as a compound claim. The art of combining claims to make it a stronger claim is very difficult. The key fact in this version of a claim is that, when two or more claims are combined, they should not be viewed as many claims, rather just as one claim.
       Another way a claim can be made strong and interesting if one reasons with "or" claims. This type of claim basically states that : "A or B, not A; So B" (Epstein, 117).  This lays a strong foundation for many of the claims to be structured as valid. It is easier for one to asses the argument, and provide reasonable claims to support their argument. In other words, this form can help reduce other possibilities, thus increasing the chances for the argument to be valid. As we have learned, a valid argument, does not have to be a strong one.

The Principle of Rational Discussion

           The term Rational discussion should give you an insight on what is going to be defined in this post. The whole purpose of an argument is to convince the other person, with valid, strong, and logical reasons. So in order for the other person to be convinced, the one who is arguing and making the claims should :
1. Know the subject under discussion
2 ) Be able and willing to reason well
3 ) Not lie
( Epstein, Critical Thinking, Pg 60)

The arguer should have enough background knowledge about the idea he/she is going to argue about. If one does not have the sufficient information regarding the topic, his argument would certainly not convince the other person. The argument does not become valid, just because the arguer talks about an issue that the other person does not know. So, it is the duty of the arguer to also fill in the blanks for the other person in order to argue and convince them.
The act of convincing someone travels through many different paths. That is, people get convinced either by watching the news, reading the news papers, or even word of mouth. There are many arguers who get convinced and try to pass the message on to others. These arguers obtain only the convincing message and forget why they got convinced, and why they should convince other people. Thus, such people lack the reasoning capacity to rationally form their arguments.
Finally, an argument should not contain lies. If there are lies that can easily be detected, the other person is not going to be convinced. Lies always deteriorate the impact of the argument. It has happened to me many times. I have tried to argue with my mother, with the support of lies, and my mother sees right through it. I end up not convincing my mother to reach my objective.
The author of Critical Thinking also mentions that, if there are equally good arguments from both sides of the coin, then it is best to look into both sides and then come to a conclusion.

Rejecting and Accepting Claims : Advertisement

This is the ad that I have chosen : Ray Lewis's Old Spice Ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnLN6DuHXPQ&feature=channel

The claims in the ad are :

Women want me

Men want to be me

Animals want to learn how to talk, so that they can hang out with me

“Greatest Smell in the NFL “

Conclusion: Because old spice soaks out deodorants

The premises might be true for Ray Lewis. This is where ads can be very tricky. They project premises that are true only for the character in the commercial, but not for the viewers. I reject these claims through personal experiences. I use Old Spice every day, just because it is cheap. First of all, the premises targeted for Ray Lewis definitely do not apply to me. Not all women want me; not all men want to be me; and certainly, animals did want not to hang out with me just because I apply Old Spice.  Second, the theory behind animals wanting to learn how to talk, just because a person has Old Spice on, is illogical. It is highly difficult to even understand a human being’s thoughts, how can one understand that of an animal’s.

I also think that his premises are wage and weak. The conclusion is also as weak as the premises. One of the premises: "Men want to be me” is a very debatable claim. This is because, that claim relates to either his character, or  his body (physique). If the claim is regarding his character, then I know that most men do not want to be him, because his ratings have dropped after “he avoided murder charges and jail time in 2000” (CNN Sports Illustrated). I personally would never want to be like Ray Lewis, even if I have Old Spice on me. Therefore, I reject the claims. 

Repairing Argument

A repairing argument is basically an argument that is missing the connecting factor. In other words, arguments that have a mistake, can be corrected with a suitable premises or a conclusion. This correction can only be done if these three rules satisfy :

1 ) The argument becomes strong or valid

2 ) The premises is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person

3 ) The premise is more plausible than the conclusion.

My argument is :

A Parrot is a bird.

So, a Parrot has feathers

Analysis : Here, my premises is true; My conclusion is also true. But to make this argument a strong argument, a premises needs to be added. The premises to be added here is : All birds have feathers. Now, there is a flow to my argument, and none of my premises can be questioned. Both my premises lead to a clear and valid conclusion. Prior to adding the "repaired" premises, the argument did not make sense, and lacked the  missing link. Thus, the repaired argument would look like 

A Parrot is a bird

All birds have feathers

So, a Parrot has feathers

Developing effective skills in Organizational communication

This is a very important concept in any working environment. The concept of effective skills in organizational communication is crucial. According to The Essential Guide to Group Communication by O'hair and Wiemann, it states that there are two ways of communication : Formal and Informal.

 A formal communication channel represents the hierarchy that an employee has to go through to communicate with his superiors / co-workers. This formal communication requires every employees to go through a particular format to reach another person. For example, as the textbook states, an entry level employee cannot send an e-mail to a Vice -President. He would have to get it approved by his Director, and if the e-mail is approved by the Director it can be sent to the Vice President. Another must, is that employees are supposed to send memos and letters, instead of text messages, or a face - to - face conversation. this type of communication ladder is called a formal channel of communication.

An informal channel is quite opposite to the formal channel. The informal channel is also known as the "grapevine" channel.There is more freedom provided to the employees in an informal channel. An employee can send an e-mail to his Vice President, without the e-mail getting approved by his Director.

There are many other small criterias that are required in each channel. Over all it is important for us, employees, to know which type of channel that particular company opts with. So know when and where to talk to your superiors or subordinates. Also know how to talk and handle different things, by taking into consideration the mode of communication and its channel.

Strawman

The straw man concept is a very simple, but a common fallacy that most of us use in their daily lives. I think that the straw man fallacy is, when a person uses another person's argument or statement as leverage, and puts that argument into his own argument; but this argument completely contradicts the original argument.
According to Epstein, a straw man fallacy is "knocking down someone's argument if you misrepresent it, by putting words in the other person's mouth" (Critical Thinking, 202).
I believe most the politicians practice this fallacy a lot, especially when it comes to laws and propositions.
Which bring me to my example, assisted suicide.

My friend and I were talking about the assisted suicide bill that was passed in California in the year of 2008.
He was telling me that, he supported that bill; He told me that if people are in depression or mentally ill then  someone should put them to sleep.
For which I said, "If you support this bill, do you support death and killing ?"

So, here I took his argument down, by misrepresenting his own argument and changing the dimensions and context. In my words, this is what a straw man fallacy is.

Exercise : Structure of Arguments

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 property value (5).

The conclusion for this argument is  : 

It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property value.

Additional premises would be preferable, like : His old cars cause so much damage and commotion to the community and the environment. ( This claim could be placed before claim 4. )

Subagruments  : 

The argument has a couple of subarguments. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th claims are a subargument for the 1st argument. 

Good argument :

In my opinion the argument was not strong. I also believe that the argument was not a valid one. One of his premises is false, and hence the argument becomes invalid. One of his premises could be false; the claim that states, "People do not like living next door to such a mess." If he had stated "I do not like living next door to such a mess" would have made the argument stronger, but it would not have a connection with the conclusion. The conclusion basically states that, the neighbor's actions with his old cars, would be bad for the entire neighborhood. His premises is false because, one person cannot speak on behalf of others, especially when the premises does not provide evidence of the entire neighborhood's opinion.(This is a hasty generalization) .

Overall I felt that this exercise helped me identify keys claims and concepts that are present in a sentence. This exercise also helped me understand the connection within the sentences, and fill in the blanks if the connection was missing. In the end, it was pretty helpful. :)

What is leadership ?

The role a leader of a group performs is very important. The actions he performs determines his leadership qualities. There is no particular definition of the term "leadership". According to O'Hair and Wiemann, leadership is an "interpersonal influence, exercised in a situation, and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals" (Group Communication, 32). There are different types of leadership traits; Authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez- faire are the different categories. 
An authoritative leader is one who takes in-charge of the decision making process. Since he/ she takes command, the group members are not taken into consideration, which leads to lower interest and satisfaction from the group members.
A consultative leader is quite opposite to an authoritative leader. This type of leader brings into account the decisions and opinions of his group members. Surprisingly, this style does not cheer the group members, because the members would want a decisive decision to occur. Soon, frustration occurs upon the team.
A participative leader is one who is similar to a consulting leader, but a participative leader does not stop at just taking opinions and ideas, he/she takes it and exercises them with his group.
A laissez-faire leader is basically not a leader at all. All the decisions and ideas are taken by the entire group. The satisfaction level is the lowest among all the types of leadership qualities.
I believe that a leader should be able to carry out all these types of leadership qualities. This is because a group does not want a leader with just one particular trait and not be able to handle a situation which would demand a leader with a different trait.

Strong and valid argument

Hey there guys.
I had a tough time getting to know the difference between a valid argument and a strong argument, but eventually go through with it. :D
First, I would like to define what a premises is, in my own words. A premises is a statement, or an event, that provides evidence or support to one's argument, for its conclusion. 
 Since a premises plays a major role in making an argument valid, a valid argument  is an argument which has to have all its premises true. It also has to have its conclusion true at the same time as well. If, either its premises or the conclusion is false, then the whole argument becomes invalid. In words of Epstein, a valid argument is "an argument, if there is no possible way for its premises to be true and its conclusion false at the same time" ( Epstein, Critical Thinking, 39).
Now, here is a simple example of  a valid argument :
2 + 2 = 4
Since, 1 + 1 = 2
Therefore, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4
Here the premises and the conclusion are true, all at the same time. A valid argument does not have to be a "good" argument as long as it is valid.

On the other hand, a strong argument is an argument where the premises and the conclusion are not true at the same time, but the premises cannot be questioned. In the words , Epstein states in his book that, a strong argument is "if there is some way, some possibility, for its premises to be true and its conclusion false" (Epstein, Critical Thinking, 40). Basically, an argument can be judged "strong" or "weak" only if the argument is invalid.
Here is the same example, but in terms of a strong argument :
2 + 2 = 4
Since, 1 + 1 = 2
Therefore, 1 + 1 + 1 = 4

The premises in this example are true and strong. Now, what I mean by "strong" is, that both my premises cannot be questioned. It is a clear cut fact. Nobody can prove my premises wrong. On the contrary, the problem with my argument is the conclusion. Regardless of my argument being invalid ( premises = true ; conclusion = false ), my premises are strong enough to make my entire argument a strong argument, but an invalid one nonetheless.
Hope this made sense :)

Argument

Hi there, my argument is 

Cristiano Ronaldo is a professional soccer player.

Cristiano wears soccer cleats for all his professional soccer matches.

Therefore, every professional soccer player wears cleats for all their professional soccer matches.

My argument is a simple argument. One might think that this argument is true. Unfortunately, my argument is an invalid argument. Even though my premises are true, conclusion is not. You might think that I am being silly with my argument. For fact, the only professional soccer version that clearly states in its rules that, its players are NOT to wear cleats during its matches is beach soccer. Believe it or not, beach soccer is categorized as a professional sport. It is part of FIFA (the governing body for soccer), thus making this sport a professional sport. 

I believe that my argument is a strong one, because my premises cannot be thought in different scenarios. That is, my premises cannot be questioned. I say this with confidence, because FIFA has compelled all those professional players, who play on fields other than sand, to wear soccer cleats.  If these players do not wear their cleats, they will not be allowed to play.

Since, beach soccer is a professional sport my conclusion can be questioned, because the game does not require its players to wear cleats. Therefore my argument is strong, but invalid.  

Goal Setting in Groups (Group Communication)

Goal setting is one of the most important aspects of communication. Imagine a game of soccer, the goal of this game is to get the ball past the goalkeeper of the opponent's team. To achieve this objective, the team has to set its goals, such as communicating with each other, getting the ball to the strikers, etc. When the team loses its way to achieve these goals, the entire team will suffer and might end up losing the game.
Now apply these concepts but in similar situations; Situations that are related to your business, or class work, or even your life long goal. When these concepts are applied in group events, such as the soccer game, or at business / work, these goals are very important. For this, O'Hair and Wiemann suggest a group leader, who can take control of these goals and help his/her team fulfill them to the group's potential. O'Hair and Wiemann also suggest that the team should always ask a couple of questions when the goals are being implemented :
1 ) For what purpose does your group exist ?
2) Do all group members understand and accept the goals? Are they committed to them?
3) How close is your group to achieving its goals?
4) How well are your group's activities or functions aligned with the goals ?
( O'Hair, Wiemann. The essential Guide to Group Communcation . New York, Bedford / St. Martin's. 22 )

It is really important for everyone to participate in the group's discussions, problems, and goals. It is even more important for the group leader to guide the team with the help of these goals. As the authors mention " The more you use the group's goals to guide you, the  more satisfied you are likely to be as a participant" (O'Hair, Wiemann).

Vague and Ambiguous sentences

Has anyone come across this question or comment during a conversation : "Country XYZ does not have capital !" ?

If not, you can prepare yourself for this when you do come across it. 

This was my second semester at Sjsu, and it was during my Bus 20 (Accounting) class that most of us stumbled upon this question. It was a very hot day, and the class was a noon class, which didn't help us concentrate. The professor was breezing through the chapter, and suddenly turned around and asked us, "Can anyone tell me why Greece is going to end up without capital ?"

This question was pretty straight forward for me, because I understood the right context in which the word "capital" was used in. Many of my friends had a question mark on their faces. 

At this point, I shall define the term "capital" for you.

One of the definitions  of the word "capital"  is, "the city or town that is the official seat of government in a country, state, etc." (Capital, Online dictionary). 

Another way one can define "capital" is as follows, "any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth" (Capital, Online Dictionary).

So, in other words our professor was asking us, why won't Greece have capital (the 2nd definition) for its future. The class was silent after he asked us that question, and eventually the professor himself provided his opinion. 


All in all, such sentences or questions which can be interpreted in two or more ways are know as Ambiguous sentences. 

Claims !!

Hello !! :)
         I am a 100 percent confident ,regardless of the magnitude of the concept, that most of you have provided your own personal opinion or thought to someone else at some point in your life.  Those opinions and thoughts are called subjective claims. Subjective claims are basically one's own ; they can be in the form of feelings, expressions, values, or even judgments. Also, subjective claims cannot be proved, that is, they cannot be deemed true or false. 
         Here is an example of a subjective claim; I feel that the  Fédération Internationale de Football Association aka FIFA, should introduce goal line technology in every single competitive and professional game. I believe that this will help the referees and the team that scores the goal. 
       The debate going on with this issue is that, referees are not able to spot the ball when the ball crosses the line and bounces back onto the pitch. 
       The basic rule is that, when the ball crosses the goal line ( the line which is drawn between the goal posts) it is considered a goal. So, when the ball crosses the goal line, it does not have to land on the ground for it to be considered as a goal. 
       Now, an objective claim is quite opposite to a subjective claim. An objective claim has to be deemed either true or false. 
       Here is a simple example of an objective claim; There are eight planes in our solar system. 
       This statement is either true or false.The element of the claim can change over a period of time and still remain an objective claim. This is such an example; our solar system consisted of 9 plants, and now our solar system only contains 8 planets.


Keep in touch,
SoccerFreak

Hello :)

Hey guys,
           My name is Vaidheeswarkasyap, and I go by Vk :). I hope all of you had a great summer.I am a junior at Sjsu with a major in Accounting. I was born and brought up in India ; so I am not well versed in English, may it be writing, reading, or speaking it. This would be my very first online class, so I am expecting a very challenging, yet interesting semester ahead for me. Eating, sleeping, and playing soccer are three of my favorite activities :D. My life has been really interesting, as I have been handed glorious opportunities to explore and understand two different environments (U.S and India). Unfortunately, I have not yet been provided the opportunity to develop my communication skills. I feel that this is the perfect opportunity for me to express myself and develop my communication skills.
Keep in touch
SoccerFreak :)