One concept

One concept that I can probably use in future semesters would be learning about the different appeals. Being an advertising major, one of our prime responsibilities is to understand how to better persuade our consumers through a visually appealing medium. Thus, learning more about the appeals and understanding the complexities of an argument would help me in future semesters because it would provide me with the necessary background information to increase the quality of my future advertisements. Through my knowledge of appeals, I would know how to appeal to emotion, fear, love, etc. to better interact and give an illusion of connection with my audience. Learning about this concept was pretty fun too since it was not really that hard to grasp the different meanings for the wide array of appeals and I figured out how to connect it with my future courses during the same time. All in all, appeals to emotion is the one concept I could use in my future studies.

Most/ Least favorite? How to improve

Probably my most favorite part of this class was learning about the different appeals that people make in arguments. For example, a lot of people use emotional appeals in their argument in order to persuade people to agree with them. The blogs were also refreshing to do because it deals a lot with free expression and it wasn't restrictive as a paper would be. My least favorite part would probably be dealing with some of the difficult concepts during the course and not knowing if I truly grasped it. For example, going into tests I always feel confident that I understand the terms and topics in the readings but I always end up receiving a C. Some ways to improve would probably to monitor group assignments more and check in every now and then. I would've also liked to actually have one class where everyone can come and see who's enrolled in the class. 

What I learned

Believe it or not, I learned a good amount of things from this course in communication. Being an internet course I didn't initially think I was going to learn a lot but I eventually did. Through the course readings, whether it be Epstein, websites, etc. I learned how complex arguments were, how to look at arguments through different perspectives, and how to rightfully respond without using any structural or emotional fallacies. I never knew how intricate arguments truly were until this course and I hope to use this knowledge in future endeavors. Through our group assignments I learned how to apply these argument analyzing tactics to real life popular organizations and their brand messages. I also learned better communication skills because of the group assignments we had during the course. Through these group assignments, we had to self manage our own group's ideas, set our own meeting times and compile essays through separating different duties.

Smiling more will make you happy

One concept that I liked to read but wasn't talked about yet was the lesson, "Cause in populations". Through "Cause in populations" the lesson describes how, "there's a higher probability the the effect will follow than if there were not the cause." Thus, when trying to state a cause of an effect concerning large numbers of people, it becomes forced to generalize normal conditions if specific statistical data is not present. For example, the text used an example where some people might say that "Smoking causes lung cancer." Chances are that smoking one cigarette isn't going to cause cancer or even 20, but because the statement concerns a large group of people, through normal conditions, smoking would eventually lead to obtaining cancer. Another example that comes to mind is that eating Mcdonalds everyday would probably cause you to gain unhealthy weight. Because of the large amount of saturated fat, oils, and sugars found in the majority of Mcdonald's fast food, eating Mcdonalds everyday would essentially make you gain unhealthy weight. Thus, this statement would apply to everyone under normal conditions and becomes a "Cause in populations" to obesity.

Mission Critical

I find that the Mission Critical website is very helpful towards communication learning through a number of ways. For instance, the website holds links to a multiple amount of communication topics that would increase anyone's knowledge on arguments and persuasion. Several topics covered include breaking down parts of an argument, analysis of arguments (which includes universal syllogisms and non-universal syllogisms) and fallacies. In "Parts of an argument" readers are able to understand more about the different parts of several types of arguments. This is extremely helpful in real life situations because you would be able to understand the exact point of someone trying to persuade you and thus know how to better react to it. Another reason why this is useful is because the website has examples in their lessons to better explain the subject at hand. Lastly, this website also gives the option to quiz the reader on the lesson and then tell them if they got the answer right or if they were incorrect, the reason for their mistake. With a plethora of links, examples, and quizzes relating to our current course lessons, this website is definitely an awesome source for some awesome information.

Your at fault! I think....

Reading through the subsection of Mission Critical's website, "Introduction to Casual Arguments" was extremely helpful in further understanding the complexities of casual reasoning because it showcased different examples and points made in cause and effect situations. For example, in the text, an illegally parked truck has caused a bicycle to cause a series of traffic accidents. Or did it? This text reasoned how a multiple amount of factors could've led to the car accident that followed the bicycle's turn. The first car could have had a past of causing traffic jams because of their sporadic braking or the second car could have been going over the speed limit at the time of the collision. Thus, the strength of casual arguments rely on three factors: how acceptable or demonstrable the implied comparison is, how likely the case of causation seems to be, and how credible the "only significant difference" is. These strengths and prime example has taught me how to be careful in my future endeavors in casual reasoning.

Don't Judge ME

One concept that I wanted to talk more about was the topic of Judging Analogies that was found in Chapter 12 of Epstein's book. In this section of the chapter he writes how we should look at arguments made through analogies and be able to judge them better through a system of steps. He cites examples from Magic Johnson having HIV, Homosexual marriage, and Government deficit. I like all of the examples he made in the text but one that really spoke to me was the one where Zoe refuted Tom's reasoning of anti-gay marriage through analogy. Through Zoe's analogy, she was able to show that his conclusion could be considered as absurd. And why isn't it? Kim Kardashian's 72 hour marriage is getting press coverage from all over the nation and hailed as simply another "celebrity wedding" yet gay marriages aren't allowed because of the assumption that they would fail the "traditional" system? Shouldn't celebrity weddings be banned entirely then?