sexual harassment

According to O’Hair and Wiemann in chapter 4 of their Essential Guide to Group Communication, sexual harassment is defined as an “unwelcome and unsolicited behavior of a sexual nature.” It consists of any kinds of sexual activity that is unasked for, and includes anything from someone touching you in places you do not wished to be touched, to someone actually raping you. Either way, those kinds of undesirable conduct are occurring daily, whether we notice them or not. Many times, victims of these sexual harassment cases go through life without actually reporting the crimes because they are afraid of dealing with facing their attacker again. Sexually harassment is often times, caused by the misunderstanding of communication between a male and a female because of their different ways of thinking. For instance, if a female innocently smiles or shares eye contact with a male, even just as a friendly gesture, it may often times be interpreted differently to the male mind, and he may assume that she is interested in something else. Those kinds of miscommunication between the two genders are often deceptive and can lead to bad consequences that are frequently regretted. In order for us to avoid these kinds of circumstances, it is crucial for us to understand the behaviors and mindset of the opposite gender.

violating the principle of rational discussion

On page 202 of Critical Thinking, Epstein explains about the violation of the principle of rational discussion and how the fallacy connects to those who have disagreements in a ridiculous manner. Often times, the people who violate the principles of rational conversations have a motive in intentionally puzzling and/or deceiving those around him. It’s when one declares a statement that is not in any way or form, accurate, to purposely give misleading information to another person. Often times, one is known to "violate the principle of rational discussion" when the premise of his argument is extraneous to the concluding statement and/or his case can easily be interpreted as false and inaccurate. The other day, I heard someone talking on her phone with a friend. She said, “Don’t use Princeton Review. I studied off of it and still got a bad score on my SATs. It's bad and doesn’t help at all.” That’s an example of the violation of the principle of a conversation that is rational. The girl was mocking Princeton Review, saying it’s no good, when in reality, there may be other reasons as to why she did not do so well. Because she ridiculed Princeton Review to persuade her friend and make her argument convincing, she has just dishonored the standard of a rational discussion.

structure of arguments

Exercise #1: The Structure of Arguments.
1). My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard. 2). People do not like living next door to such a mess. 3). He never drives any of them. 4). They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. 5). It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.

Argument? Yes, this is an argument
Conclusion: Although it is number 1 on the list, I believe that it is actually the conclusion to this argument. “My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard” states a case and a declaration, whereas the other statements are simply just reasons as to why they think he should get rid of his cars.
Additional Premises needed? It’s true that many of the premises given above make sense to this argument. However, perhaps there is a reason as to why the neighbor chooses to keep all his cars. Maybe there is a deep and meaningful story behind each one, or possibly, they were given to him as gifts by someone dear to him. Whatever it is, it’s possible to find more details to each premise.
Identify any sub arguments: I believe that numbers 2-5 all support claim #1.
Good Argument? Yes, overall, this argument is pretty good.

This exercise was helpful for me. It allowed me to dig deeper into each sentence and to actually analyze each one, which is something I normally wouldn’t do.

attaining effective leadership

One concept that struck out to me while reading this week was the concept of having an effective leadership. Similar to the 3 tests an argument must pass in order for it to be considered a good argument, there are also 3 factors that determine whether or not a leader has the capabilities of being a group leader. Effective leadership is when one’s performance is clearly seen as encouraging and inspiring to those around him/her. It must motivate each member of the group to achieve their highest goals and to help them work together as a team. In order for one to achieve effective leadership, he must finish whatever task is thrown at him and complete everything to his best advantage. He must also prove his trustworthiness and consistency with his group members. Once each member has judged his competence and support him, he would become reliable and on his way to becoming an effective leader. The last factor that leads one to becoming an effective leader is to stir enthusiasm for each member of the group to contribute and participate. It is the leader’s job to make sure his group members are actively participating in their work. One must attain all 3 factors in order for him to be an effective leader.

strong vs. valid arguments

In my last blog post, I mentioned that it is crucial to recognize an argument as either strong or valid, which leads me to this next question: What is the difference between a strong argument and a valid one? An argument is considered to be strong when it is probable that the conclusion may be false although the premises of the beginning approach may be true. That means that while the basis of the premise is true, the conclusion may possibly be false. A valid argument, on the other hand, is when both the premises and the conclusion have the same connection—in this case, both being true. When the beginning approach and the ending argument agree and are both true, it means that the argument is therefore considered a valid argument. Take these statements for instance: “Every time she sits in a bus, she gets dizzy. Therefore, she is car sick.” It may be true and likely that she gets lightheaded every time she rides in a bus, but that does not necessarily mean that she is car sick. Maybe she happened to be going to the mountains and going up and down hills every time she was in a bus. It is also possible that the bus has been driving on winding roads to go to her destination every single time she’s in it, but one cannot assume she is car sick simply because of the mere fact that she gets dizzy on the bus. Therefore, the above argument would be considered strong because the premises of it and the conclusion don’t match up. For example, “She needs to check her emails frequently in order to know what is going on in her classes. Therefore, she must have access to the internet in order to not fall behind in her classes.” Those statements would be considered valid because both the premises of it and its conclusions match up and are both true.

what makes an argument good?

Often times, people come up with many arguments that one may question its validity and whether or not it is convincing enough to accept. According to Epstein, in order for an argument to be considered valid and/or legitimate, it must exceed 3 tests. Firstly, it is essential for the principle of the argument to be reasonable; it has to be possible for it to be true. Next, it must be more plausible than the conclusion and has to give a more superior explanation as to why it is more likely for it to be correct. Although the conclusion might not actually be true, it is important that the foundation of it is more realistic and convincing than the end statement for it to be a good argument. Lastly, it is critical to identify whether an argument is considered strong or valid. A strong argument is when it is possible for the conclusion to be false even when the premises of the original idea are true, whereas a valid argument is when both the premise and the conclusion are true.
For example, one might claim the following argument: She went ice-skating. She fell down. She is bad at ice-skating. The first statements may be true because it is definitely a possibility that she went ice-skating and fell down. However, if you look at the conclusion that she is bad at ice-skating, it is not legitimate because you do not know the circumstances as to why she fell. Perhaps the ice has just been cleaned and is more slippery and watery than usual. Maybe her friend tripped her and caused her to slip. It is also possible that the blade under her ice skate had been scratched up and therefore made her balance unstable and wobbly. Whatever the situation, the above statement would not be considered a good argument.

prescriptive claims and value judgments

Prescriptive claims and value judgments are two concepts that caught my attention as I was reading through Epstein's book. Prescriptive and descriptive claims are the two different types of claims that Epstein goes into details about. According to the author, a prescriptive claim is one that "says what should be" whereas a descriptive claim is one that "says what is." Basically what that means is that a prescriptive claim is where someone commands what needs to be done. For example, a prescriptive claim would sound something like: "you should always drink water if you want your skin to be nice." Because of the word, should, it indicates that the statement above is a command from someone else. However, a descriptive claim of that same statement would sound something like: "drinking water will keep your skin healthy and nice." It does not have any commanding tone to it, but rather more of a fact.
A value judgment, on the other hand, is similar to a prescriptive claim. The only difference is that it includes words like good, better, best, or its antonyms: bad, worse, worst. A value judgment is someone's opinion of whether something is right or wrong.

vague vs. ambiguous

The terms vague and ambiguous are often confusing to people. I used to be extremely frustrated with these two words because they're so similar, yet different at the same time. A vague statement is more like a word or phrase that has an uncertain meaning to it--something that is not defined or clearly expressed. An ambiguous statement, on the other hand, is something that can have two or more meanings to it. It would be a statement where a part of it is possible to be interpreted in more than one way. For example, on Monday I was looking for a pair of ballet flats. I asked my friend for his opinion on what he thinks. He said that he liked the pair of shoes I wore on Sunday and told me to buy a similar one with a flower on it. I was confused because I don't own a pair of shoes with flowers on them. So I asked him, "You mean bow?" because that particular pair of shoes had bows on them. And then he got confused and said, "No..flower." We went on for another minute and he ended up asking, "Aren't bows like a bow and arrow?" And I started laughing and I remembered that his English is not perfect because he's only been in the states for a few years. When he said flower, he actually meant bow, but he said flower instead because he didn't know the proper word for bow. So the statement that he said would be considered ambiguous because I interpreted it differently than what he meant to say.

subjective vs objective claims

There are two different types of claims--subjective claims and objective claims. These claims may be similar in ways, but they also have their differences. Some may be get the two mixed up, but they are actually quite easy to differentiate.
Subjective claims are statements that are based on one's personal standards. The statements made cannot be proven to be true or false. They are simply beliefs and/or opinions of oneself. An example of a subjective claim would be if someone were to say, "Your haircut is extremely cute!" That statement right there would be considered a subjective claim because it is merely someone's opinion. There is no way to prove it to be true or false.
Objective claims, on the other hand, are the opposite of a subjective claims. They are statements that are based on standards that are impersonal to oneself. Objective claims can be verified to be true or false--they are simply just facts. An example of an objective claim would be if someone were to say, "You got a haircut!" That statement can be verified to be true or false simply by just asking the person whether or not they got a haircut. Therefore, it is an objective claim.