valid vs weak

Every sentence and/or statement we say can be argued against. No matter what the statement is, there is always a way to analyze it. Some arguments sound pretty decent and valid, but in reality, it is considered to be a weak one. They only sound good because it is actually very similar to a valid form of argument.

For example: All fish swim.
Bubbles swims.
So Bubbles is a fish.

Many people would consider that to be a pretty good argument. However, Epstein tells us that it is actually, a weak argument. Sure, Bubbles swims, but so do I! Does that make me a fish? Of course it is true that all fish swim, but the truth is, so do other animals in the sea! Not just animals in the sea though, because there are many other mammals that can swim. Bubbles could be a whale, a dolphin, a dog, even a human! So therefore, that argument is weak. A valid argument, though, would be:

All fish swim.
Bubbles is a fish.
So Bubbles swims.

This here, is a much more accurate statement. If all fish swim, and Bubbles is a fish, then that must mean he swims.

D.A.R.E.

I really enjoyed working on the second course assignment with my group. Having to communicate all the time through computers and internet, with this being an online course, it is sometimes hard to communicate with other peers. Working through this assignment together in person really strengthens not only our bonds with each other, but also our ideas and points of views as well. Throughout this assignment, my group and I focused on the organization, D.A.R.E. As a kid, I have always noticed people walking around with the black and red D.A.R.E. T-shirt on. I never knew what it was for until we researched on it. Turns out, it is a program taught by police officers, encouraging children to stay drug-free, violence-free, and to resist peer pressure .I learned a lot from reading their website, the “kid's only” website, and articles on it. Having to analyze everything helped me to really look in-dept on what this program was all about and how to think critically about different aspects of this organization.

general claims

When I was reading chapter 8, although it only talks about the words all, some, no, and only, it reminded me of all of the other similar exaggerated words people use. Many times, people use exaggerated words to try and prove a point. For example, they don't just use the words: all, some, no, and only. They also use the similar words: every, always, or never. These words are all very similar because they are all exaggerated claims that try to make a statement sound more legit. However, instead of making it sound like a better claim, sometimes it makes it sound a little fake. I'm sure you guys have all heard people say, "I am never wrong!" Of course, they are just saying that to make a point and a statement saying that they are rarely ever wrong, but "rarely ever" is still not the same thing as "never." Saying "I am never wrong" is just like saying "I am always right." Again, that uses another exaggerated word--always, when they actually mean "almost always."

judging too soon

Many times when we are talking to people, we hear what they say, but we do not necessarily listen to what they say. There is a difference between hearing and listening. Hearing is when you hear the sounds coming from someone’s mouth, but listening is when you actually break down what they say and understand what is coming out of their mouths. As listeners, we often tend to be biased and only take in what our friends say because we trust their view on certain things. However, as critical thinkers, it is important for us to not only believe what our friends say, but also be critical. Just because we usually trust what they say, does not mean they always know what to do at every situation. At the same time, we can’t just disregard someone’s comment just because they usually do not say adequate things. They might, somehow, just say something very insightful that we should really take into mind. With that said, do not judge an argument based on the person who’s saying it for it may mislead you in the wrong direction.

sex sells

Calvin Klein, as a fashion designer, designs and sells clothes. However, in his advertisements, such as the one portrayed above, it seems to me that he is actually trying to sell sex, rather than his clothing line. Often times, people who sell clothes, perfume, even deodorant or watches, represent their models as “sex” objects to grab other people’s attentions. The phrase “sex sells” really is true. However, the messages and claims that this advertisement is spreading is that once one purchases an outfit from Calvin Klein, he or she will have the pleasurable sex they have desired and yearned for. This message that is being portrayed can, obviously, be taken many ways. One can either accept, reject, or suspend the judgment and message that the ads are sending out. Just because one obtains some clothing from Calvin Klein, it does not guarantee great sex. You may not even get a man that way! And I know that from personal experience. It is essential for everyone, especially to those whom the advertisements are geared towards, to understand how important it is to trust our own personal experiences because it is the “most reliable source of information” (84) we have. Don’t be fooled by irrational advertisements that try to sell you things by blinding you with unrealistic thoughts.

repairing arguments

Normally, when in a conversation, it is rare for someone to state every single premise of an argument so that those around him can understand it to be a strong or a valid argument. People often times just assume that everyone else understands what he is speaking about; nothing has to be justified as strong or valid because it’s not essential for us to state all the premises that come along with the argument. However, many statements are in need of repairing. For example: “Tom’s car is running out of gasoline. He needs to get to the gas station as soon as possible before his car dies.” As of now, that statement would not be a very good argument because the conclusion and the premise do not complement each other. If instead, you add another premise that verifies some information we normally assume to be true, it would strengthen the argument. For example, adding “It is crucial for a car to have gasoline in it in order for the car to drive” verifies to the reader that a car needs gasoline in order for it to function properly. With that additional premise given, it reveals the hidden premise to the reader and strengthens the beginning argument.