Generalizing

There were many interesting concepts in chapter 14. I think there are many useful tools in generalizing that can be used in reasoning. Generalizations are arguments. In the book, "Critical Thinking" by Richard L. Epstein, he discusses whether generalization in an argument is good. As Epstein defines, generalizing is if we conclude about a group, the population, from a claim about some part of it, the sample. Epstein explains that sometimes the general claim is the conclusion is called generalization. To see whether it is an argument and if the generalization is good, it should consist of a strong argument with plausible premises. There are three premises needed for a good generalization. The three premises consist of having the sample representative, the sample big enough and the sample studied well. I think that all of the previous chapters we have learned about all applies to generalizing arguments. It helps evaluate and analyze arguments.

Blankcanvas

Favorites

There are many favorites about the class. I like about our Critical thinking and decision making class. My first favorite thing about the class was the fact that I was able to learn concepts and use it towards other classes. It improved my communication skills and reasoning which helped me a lot in school, at home and in a professional environment. Having a bad first online experience, our online class has changed my perspective on online classes. I like how quick our professor emailed back with replies. My least favorite things about the class was how it was a bit difficult to balance out group schedule meetings with everyone having such different availability times. I also did not like how on the online test, we were unable to go back and see which answers we got incorrect to learn from our mistakes. Another least favorite thing about the class was the 12 hour gap for posting blogs. I think the class can improve by allowing students to blog freely. Overall, the class was great and very effective!

Blankcanvas

What I learned in Comm 41

I was a bit skeptical about what I would learn enrolling in Communication, Critical Thinking and Decision Making, because I was unsure if what I learn was going to be useful, but by the end of the semester, I not only learned many new concepts, but also improved many skills as well. I learned how to improve critical thinking by learning how to identify if an argument is valid, strong, invalid, bad, if it needed to be repaired and how the premise play a important role in an argument. I also learned the different kinds of fallacies in an argument and how it may effect an argument. One section I learned about most was evaluating premises. An argument must pass to be good if there is good reason to believe the premises, the premises are plausible than the conclusion and if the argument is strong or valid. Critical thinking and decision making helped me improved communication skills, critical thinking and reasoning and are useful tools I can use towards my major.

Blankcanvas

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