Reasoning by criteria

From this week's discussion we learned about a lot of different types of arguments and ways to execute them.  Out of all the ones we were given, the one that I had the most trouble with was Reasoning by criteria.  Although i was able to participate in the first post and provide an example, i'll admit my example is unclear even to me.  I felt that with further research about this topic I would be able to better understand it.  What I found was that each criteria were actually just different types of premises.  Arguments are supported by their premises and in this example, the criteria are just as important.  They need to be established as valid and true in order to be in a strong and valid argument.  Criteria are also ways to shorten premises and conclusions and combine them together as well.  Just as with premises, we can assume criteria from reliable sources such as our friends to be true.  The outcome (or conclusion) to an argument is supported through its premises and criteria, so in order to create a solid conclusion, criteria must be appointed first.  

Reasoning

Reasoning by analogy:
Premise 1: There are only 4 members of my family
Premise 2: My mom golfs
Premise 3: My brother golfs
Premise 4: I golf
Premise 5: My dad golfs
Conclusion: Every person in my family golfs.

Sign Reasoning:
I was driving to a very important job interview that I was going to be on time for.  On the freeway my tire popped.  I needed to get to that interview on time, so I changed my tire.

The conclusion here is that BECAUSE I popped my tired, I NEEDED to change it to be on time to my interview.

Casual Reasoning:
Last weekend the Oakland Raiders played at home.  The Raiders scored a touchdown.  Therefore, the crowd cheered and went crazy.

Reasoning by Criteria:
If you were trying to rally interest in prop 19, instead of saying: "Prop 19 is important"
One should say: "Let's discuss both sides of prop 19 with ways to check all facts and evidence"

Reasoning by example:
You want Mrs. X as your teacher? I wouldn't choose her, I have a lot of friends who have told me about how mean of a teacher she is.  They say she grades really hard and unfair.  I also read the reports from ratemyprofessor.com and they all say she is mean.  You should not choose her as your teacher.

Inductive:
Every night I can look up and see stars.  Therefore, this night when I look up I will see stars.

Deductive:
Every night I can look up and see stars.  I am in the middle of a desert miles away from civilization where no light pollution can affect me.  I am under no roof, therefore when I look up I will see stars.

Big course assignments

So we just finished our second big course assignment and I feel like both have been very helpful.  I really liked how we were able to connect the main idea of the assignment to the concepts we read about from the book.  For example, although it was required from each assignment to connect the idea directly to the examples of the book, I feel that in doing so we were able to get a better grasp of each concept.  By first reading the chapters in the book I was able to connect them to a real life situation thanks to this project.  I really liked the second project a lot, which is why I felt I was able to easily make the assignment.  The parts that I was chosen to write about were parts of the text that I felt were very easily understandable.  For example, I wrote about one endorsement to the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers which is the National Football League.  Obviously the idea behind MADD is a very strong and valid one, and such a large company as the NFL looks great by donating money and time to it.  Its common sense why they donate to MADD, but it really connects well to the text.  I looked at who would donate, why, what are the motives.  All are very common sense, yet its important to take a look at the fact that big companies endorse organizations.  Sometimes they do have motives to mislead, but in this case it was all very legitimate and helpful.

Chapter 8

After reading chapter 8 I realized that most of the time the arguments we make in everyday life are very unclear.  We toss around words like "all", "some", and "no" in our arguments when we think they make clear sense and aid our argument.  But in reality, we use these words at unnecessary times that actually make our arguments weaker or false.  The words "all", "some", and "no" have contradictions that we need to realize can hurt arguments we are trying to make.  For example, the contradictions to the word "all" are "some are not" and "not every". Most people (including myself) would assume the contradiction to "all" is "none" but according to the text, this is not true.  When I talk to my friends in everyday life, I use claim words that I need to be more careful when using.  For example, when my friend asked me: "Have you finished your on-line homework so we can go to the tailgate?"  My response was: "Yea, i've finished some of it."  When I throw this line out this, I used a claim that was very vague.  Some of my homework was finished (about one post) but my friend was hoping that "some" meant somewhere around 3 posts and 2 comments finished.       

Chapter 7 topics

One concept from chapter 7 that I have trouble grasping is the statement: "it is irrational to say that an argument is good and then deny its conclusion."  The fact is that this statement has been introduced to us before, yet I still have trouble with it.  I don't know why I have trouble with this, but for some reason I just can't explain why I don't like it or why it makes sense.  If someone could reply to this post with a better grasp of this concept I would greatly appreciate it.  But now on to chapter 7 concepts.  If you are able to raise objections towards a persons argument you are showing how this argument is bad.  According to the book, this is one of the best ways to counter a person's argument.  By showing a premise is weak, then you are showing how the argument is weak.  This makes complete sense to me, because arguments are completely based on their premises.  As stated in the book, premises become glued together to support a conclusion.  In a multi layered argument, premises can be seen as mini-arguments.  By proving these premises dubious, showing an argument isn't valid or strong, or showing that a conclusion is false are direct ways of refuting an argument. (Epstein, 149)

Refuting Indirectly:  As stated in the book, sometimes during an argument we have trouble directly proving a premises wrong.  An example could be a well-studied field of science that you MIGHT think something is wrong with.  But having a well-educated person countering your premises could be hard for you to counter.  In this case, we need to indirectly refute claims.  By having dubious premises, we can draw a false or unwanted conclusion from them.  This shows how directly premises need to be in order to have a strong and valid argument.    

Compound Claims

From chapter 6 the most helpful information I learned was regarding how to decipher compound claims.  The information that stuck with me most was the way compound claims are formed and how we can use them in arguments.  I never realized it before, but the word "or" affects whatever you are saying in very drastic ways.  Or can take two claims and put them together into one while still holding both claims.  It is very easy to tell the difference between claims and arguments, as we only need to find an indicator word to tell us the difference.  One aspect that I found helpful was the fact that we cab use "neither A nor B to be a contradictory of A or B."  We must remember to view each claim in compound claims as its own, but to view the entire claim as one.  This means both claims must be true in order for the compound claim to be true.

Repairing Arguments

If we find an argument that is either weak or invalid, we can repair it following some easy steps.  One way is to add an unstated premise or unstated conclusion.  By doing this, we can make the argument stronger or more valid, and according to the text, by accomplishing this will repair your argument.  Take the example argument:
Recycling is important.  Everyone should recycle.
The premise here is "recycling is important." and the conclusion is "everyone should recycle."  This argument is weak as of now because we are being too vague with our premises.  We need to add one or two more to make this argument stronger.  By adding the premise: Recycling helps save the rain forest from being cut down and cuts down on the amount of pollutants in our air.  Supposing that the person we are arguing with knows background information about this topic, we can safely assume these premise.
The argument is now:

Recycling is important. Recycling helps save the rain forest from being cut down and cuts down on the amount of pollutants in our air. Everyone should recycle.

By adding this one premise, we give reason for people accepting our first premise to support the conclusion.  By just telling someone that something is important is not enough.  By adding this premise however, we can show how recycling is actually beneficial and important.  This argument is now stronger and more valid.  Also, the premises are plausible and seem more plausible to the person who with we are arguing.  By satisfying these, we are following the guide to repairing arguments.