The Normal Conditions

There were many interesting concepts on cause and effects on chapter 15. In the book, "Critical thinking" by Richard L. Epstein, he discusses the cause and effects in an argument. In section A2, Epstein describes the normal conditions in an argument. As Epstein defines, Normal conditions is, for a casual claim, the normal conditions are the obvious and plausible unstated claims that are needed to establish that the relationship between purported cause and purported effect is either valid or strong. I think learning and knowing about normal conditions is a very useful tool because it is easy to evaluate an argument. Epstein provides an example and explains that the argument can continue because we assume what "normally" can occur. The chapter also provides the criteria for cause and effects which may be very helpful as well. I think there were many interesting and useful tools in chapter 15 like all the other chapters in Epstein's book.

Blankcanvas

Mission Critical

There were many useful tool on the Mission Critical web page. There are many sections of links that were interesting that students can learn from. The main menu provides a large variety of sections starting with Parts of arguments, Basic relations, analysis of arguments, Fallacies and Non-Rational Persuasion and Other common fallacies. Each section provides statements, definitions, quizzes, and exercises to help students understand the different reasoning in an argument. The web page provides what distinguishes claims and how to evaluate a reason. I think all of the definitions, examples, exercises, and quizzes are very useful because it is a teaching tool for students to learn the different reasons in an argument. The exercises provides if the answer students select in the exercises and quizzes are correct or incorrect which can be a very useful tool in trying to learn fallacious appeals, conjunctions, causal argument, deductive reasoning and many more.


Blankcanvas

Cause and Effect

The Causal Arguments web page provided many useful tools that can be use in an argument. The Introduction to Casual Arguments provided a scenario of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is a reasoning from a case and generalized by observation. The scenario creates an argument between a bicyclist, illegally parked truck and two oncoming drivers. It states that although seems to fit the pattern of an inductive argument, it actually is an inductive argument. There were only one different and it all depended on the incident before. The web page also provides the what thee factors a casual argument relies on; one, how to accept or demonstrate the implied comparison, two, how likely the case for causation seems to be, and three, how to credible the 'only significant difference' or 'only significant commonality' claim is. I think the information provided on the web page can help how to analyze and evaluate an argument.


Blankcanvas

Judging Analogies

Chapter 12, Reasoning by Analogy, was very interesting. In the book, "Critical Thinking" by Richard L. Epstein, he provides more examples and definitions on how to reason in an argument. He also discusses techniques of how to identify and judge an analogy. Epstein explains in his examples that an analogy of an argument to another can be a great way to refute an argument and that just saying that one side of the analogy in an argument is like the other is too vague to be stated and used as the premise in an argument. Epstein provides a list of questions to ask when evaluating an analogy.

•  Is it an argument and does it have a conclusion?
• What is the comparison in the argument?
• What are the premises?
• What are the similarities in comparison to both sides?
• Can we state the similarities as premises and find a general principle?
• Does the general principle really apply to both sides? Does it make a difference?
• Is the argument strong or valid? Is it good?

I think by providing these questions, Epstein made it a very useful tool because he makes it easier to identity an analogy in an argument.


Blankcanvas

Explained reasoning

From the list of reasoning provided, there were a couple reasoning that were a bit difficult to understand. The one reasoning I found that was most difficult for me to understand was casual reasoning in an argument. After reviewing more sites on casual reasoning, it made it much clearer to understand. Causal reasoning is a form of inductive reasoning. Casual reasoning should have good reasons to believe that the events in the argument, the cause, relates to other events, the effect. After I grasp the concept of causal reasoning, I realize it was a bit difficult to create an example for the reasoning. The example I came up with was, "Passing all nursing prerequisites with good grades leads to acceptance into the nursing program." The cause is passing all prerequisites with good grades and the effect is the acceptance into the nursing program. The effects follows the cause, but the effects does not cause the cause.

Blankcanvas

Types of Reasoning

There are many types of reasoning in a argument. Some type of reasoning may be reasoning by analogy, sign reasoning, causal reasoning, reasoning by criteria, reasoning by example, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Here are examples of each reasoning:


Reasoning by analogy
Manny Pacquiao is a Filipino and Manny Pacquiao boxes.
Ivan is Filipino.
Ivan boxes.

Sign Reasoning
Rachel is not opening her door as I knock loudly, so I guess Rachel is not home.

Causal Reasoning
Passing all nursing prerequisites with good grades leads to acceptance in the nursing program.

Reasoning by Criteria
How would I know if my essay is well developed?
A well developed essay includes examples to support your thesis throughout the conclusion.

Reasoning by Examples  
You should be more social. I met a girl who was too shy and was always alone.
Inductive Reasoning
All of the fire trucks we have seen are red.
All fire trucks are red.


Deductive Reasoning
All girls have monthly periods.
Ronnie is on ther period.
Ronnie is a girl.

Blankcanvas

Too much emotion - Exercise 9

Vote for Senator Wong. He knows how important your concerns are.

I decided to complete exercise 9 from chapter 10 due to this year's election. It's likely to hear arguments stating how a senator or congressman cares about your concerns, then most fail to meet their goals. The argument, "Vote for Senator Wong. He knows how important your concerns are", is an example of a feel-good argument. As Epstein defines, a feel good argument is an argument that appeals to our wanting to feel good about ourselves. In this example, it attempts to make the statement feel good about ourselves and our concerns because "he knows how important your concerns are". The argument tries to imply that Senator Wong cares about your concerns, and if you vote for Senator Wong, he will make an effort to those concerns. Although the statement gives you a feel good message, the argument is bad because the argument is vague. Everyone's concern is a broad the argument is just for voters to feel good about voting for him.

Blankcanvas

Objective 2

Find an advertisement that uses an appeal to fear. Is it a good argument?

Appeal to fear does not necessarily have to be bad. In my example of appeal to fear advertisement, the appeal to fear may be good. An advertisement I heard on radio talks shows recently and has also been advertising on television is Hair Loss products. Rogaine is a product that regrows hair and prevents hair loss. Rogaine's slogan is "Use it or lose it". The advertisement uses appeal to fear by adding, "Hair loss is in your family, but it does not have to, use Rogaine". The implicit in this argument is that, "Because hair loss is in the family history, you should buy Rogaine" It also says to, "Use it or lose it" which implies that if you do not use Rogaine's hair loss product, you will It is a good argument but the argument is implausible.

Blankcanvas

Appeals to Emotion

In the book, "Critical Thinking" by Richard L. Epstein, he discusses the different types of appeals to emotion.  Epstein mentions that emotions do play a role on reasoning in an arguments, but that it does not mean that emotions should not be all in an argument. As Epstein states, An appeal to emotion is a premise said in a certain tone to convince others to believe you feel a certain way. The different types of appeals Epstein mentions are, the appeal to pity, appeal to fear, appeal to spite and appeal to vanity. The appeal that stood out to me most was an argument that call in your debts appeal. Call in your debts is the opposite of spite appeal. This appeal grabbed my interest most because I have encountered situations like it various times. Someone believing you owe them something because they did you a favor. My sisters tend to be this way a lot. For example, "Can you wash my clothes for me since I'm is fixing your car?" She is asking me to do something for her, owing her a favor because she did me a favor.

Blankcanvas