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.