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?

Oooh baby what's your sign?

Reasoning by Sign 

            One concept that I found difficult to understand at first was reasoning by sign. Initially, when reading it, I assumed that it meant reasoning through reading one's body language or indicative expressions, symbols, etc. Although I was partially correct, it confused me how when I clicked on the link on our instructor's blog page, I was linked to a website where I couldn't find the label "Reasoning by sign" but only "Argument by Sign". After reading the definition, I had a general understanding but it was still vague. So afterwards I looked for more information concerning reasoning by sign and stumbled on this link for more information and it really helped me streamline the definition of the subject. Also, I looked at everyone else's blogs on our student site and the examples only helped clarify it's meaning. Therefore, reasoning by sign is basically when someone associates a certain item, expression, factor with a person, event, place and assumes things based on their past encounter with the item, expression, or factor. I.e You have clown shoes and a red nose, so you must be a clown.

Money grows on trees. $$$

Reasoning Examples

1). Reasoning by Analogy:

Example : Every successful model knows that they should try to control their weight in order to constantly book jobs. If all models controlled their weight then they would all constantly get job offers.

 

2). Sign Reasoning

                  Example: That person has a book bag, a notepad, and a stressed look on his face. That person must be a college student.

3). Causal Reasoning: 

                   Example: If I'm late to class one more time my professor will give me a nasty look. I was early                        to class so therefore I did not receive a nasty look.

                 

4). Reasoning by Criteria:

Example: If I eat one more bite of this double whipped, caramel drizzled, chocolate chip filled, vanilla, and Hagen Daz chocolate sundae I won't be able to fit in these pants anymore. But I do want new pants, so I'll eat this for today.

5). Reasoning by Example:.

Example: Dogs are a really good pet for you if you want to have a loyal, friendly, and lovable companion. I've received many testimonials revealing how dogs have revitalized their lives and helped them become happier people.

6). Inductive Reasoning:

Example:

Mary : I can't wait for tonight! 

Joe: What's tonight?

Mary: Well it's my birthday and my friends always try to surprise me with a big birthday bash so I'm sure there's one waiting for me at home.

Joe: Am I invited?!

Mary: No.

7). Deductive:  An argument when the conclusion must be true when the premises are true.

Example: Paper is collected from trees that are cut down. Money is made out of paper. Therefore, Money "grows" on trees.

Vanity!

Even though I found this whole section to be helpful to me through a marketing, advertising, and academic perspective I felt that one of the appeals that I liked is the appeal to vanity. This specific appeal is seen plastered everywhere in urban environments. I guarantee that in a large urban city, posters upon posters upon billboards will be seen portraying some sort of material good that is advertised as to boost some aspect of your physical looks. Whether through clothes, makeup, cars, and etc. many people strive to be the best when it comes to having the latest in material goods, which is why appealing to vanity sells. Through appealing to vanity one submits to "apple polishing" which is another term to describe exaggerating the positive effects and attributes of a product to make it seem attractive to consumers or audience. Thus, I found appealing to vanity one of the strongest type of appeals to emotion because it is constantly used in the world around us.

The realities of smoking; an appeal to fear

As I talked previously about in my blog, I feel that one of the strongest appeals to emotion is the natural appeal to fear. Even as caveman, the appeal to fear has kept us striving to survive, hunt, and maintain our families and households. In this advertisement, TobaccoFreeCA an organization against smoking, uses an appeal to fear by shocking the audience with the realities of smoking and what it could do physically and mentally to one's body. Thus, consequently portraying the decaying man in the hospital wheelchair as a highly possible end result of continuous smoking. This advertisement does an extremely good job in its argument because it highlights all the appeals to emotion that cigarette companies have used in order to draw more customers to smoking and uses its own appeal to fear to counter their statements. This is why I love the world of advertising, everything is so multi-dimensional, controversial, and captures worldwide messages in 30 sec or less.

Afraid of the Dark? Buy a Flashlight!

According to the reading, there are various different types of appeals to emotion that people can use in an argument. Someone could appeal to fear, appeal to pity, appeal to vanity, and so forth. One thing that they all have in common though is that their main driving premise is that "you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way." Thus, this appeal or way of reasoning is sometimes referred to as one of the weakest resources for an argument. One appeal to emotion that strikes me differently though was the appeal to fear. Being in advertising, one of the strongest appeals we focuses on is appealing to emotion through print, images, and different types of media. Appeal to fear is used a lot though because everyone wants to feel safe, and by portraying the dangerous aspects of the world, advertisers help sell an endless amount of things from safety products to even overtly luxurious things. Thus, other than vanity, fear sells.

Major Course Assignments

Both of our major course assignments were useful because they both teach us some certain aspects of modern popular culture and helps us to critically think about them through an alternate academic perspective. For example, our current group project focuses on breaking down famous social organixations messaages, claims, and etc. and really analyzing them to see if they have any fallacies in the arguments that they promote. This project is useful because it really opened my eyes into thinking about famous organizations in a critical way rather than just accepting their judgement on anything based on their popularity. For our group's social organization, we chose to analyze PETa which was a social organization that primarily focued on defending animal rights. Their level of argument are pretty extreme at times as they use controverisal advertising (such as displaying nude celebrities in pring) to promote hteir group's ideals, which at times are pretty unnecessary.

Don't Generalize!

One lesson that I thought useful was the section about general claims and their contradictories. This section talks about how a claim can easily be overreached if people make general claims. General claims are basically when people reason with "All" like " All people think Errol is awesome." To fix this claim and make it better sometimes, one simple needs to put "some" instead in the place of "all". Tis helps the argument because it avoids generalizing a whole group and/or message. In a contradictory sense, one could say the same thing in a negative light. For example, "No people think Errol is awesome", but that greatens the chance of creating a fallacy, especially since that's obviously not true. In real life situations, I always catch people on making general statements. I severely dislike general claims because they generalize a whole group's different ideas and characteristics and streamline them to this one persepctive.

Your on a slippery slope

One concept from the readings, specifically chapter 6, that I found interesting was the slippery slope argument. Being one of the content fallacies, I've already read upon this and it was refreshing to re-read and learn the concept again. Basically the slippery slope argument is when a bad argument uses a chain of conditionals, which at least one of which is false dubious. This happens a lot in conversations as sometimes people state/claim things they don't even know for sure. For example:

Jane: What should I wear today? I can't decide.
Mark: Well it has been cold for the past two days so wear a jacket.
Jane: But you never know weather changes, did you check the news?
Mark: I can tell its going to be cold, I mean why wouldn't it?
Jane: I guess...

Obviously Mark doesn't have any reasoning behind his conditional and thus it seems dubious and fits in with the category of slippery slope claims.

I object!!!!

Two lessons I wanted to discuss about chapter 7 were the concepts of raising objections and refuting arguments. In chapter 7, it states how raising objections essentially happens in every day life to everyone having discussions or arguments. Basically when one starts an argument, usually a counterargument appears, and then a counter to that counter argument, and etc.

An example of a typical argument with objections is as follows:

Person A (argument): It's really cold outside, want to keep me company?
                 Person B (objection): I think I should go home, I have homework.
Person A (counterargument): But it's Thursday so there's no school tomorrow
                Person B (objection): I dont know...I have ALOT of work
Person A (countercounterargument): Forget that, I have a fireplace, movie, and a couch with your name on it!
                Person B (succumbs): ok :)

Refuting an argument is also another lesson that was taught in chapter 7, which was basically what Person B was attempting to do directly in the above discussion. Person B could also refuse by reducing Person A's argument to the absurd by stating that they don't want to keep Person A company, but why would Person B want to do that if Person A is so persuasive?

Compund & Contradictory Claims

Two things that I enjoyed learning about from chapter 6 are "Compound Claims and "or" claims" and the "Contradictory of a claim". Through compound claims, the author suggests that these types of claims can be composed of different claims but is only viewed as one. An example of that would be:

Either I pass in this writing class or fail

This is an example of a compound claim because it combines two claims  "Either I pass in this writing class" and "Either I fail in this writing class" into one claim. 

In other words, a contradictory of a claim is generally the opposite of a claim, like above, an example would be:

Claim: I passed my writing class because I got an A on my final.
Contradictory claim:  I failed my writing class because I got a F on my final. 

The second is a contradictory claim because it claims the opposite message from the first claim.

Hey wanna hang out.... ;]

;]

^

What is this?

It is a winky face. 

Analysis: It is an emoticon, that is winking 

What is it inferring: That there is a suggestive meaning to whatever sentence its added onto.

So one of the topics that was covered in Chapter 4 that I found interesting enough to blog about was inferring and/ or implying claims. In this chapter, the author covers how some people leave the conclusion unsaid in a sentence because the speaker means to imply something without actually saying the premise. One example of this situation constantly happening is through the above example, the winking emoticon. In our social media universe, winky icons can suggest a variety of things when added to sentences through texts, posts, comments, messages, and etc. Although it might be used by others as a means of expressing some other type of emotions, it is generally used to add an undertone of sexuality in text. Thus accordingly, "I wanna hang out :)" is seen as friendly as opposed to "I wanna hang out ;]" can suggest further sexual activity.

Meow Meow Meow Meow

Description: In this advertisement, its obvious that it shows a brown and black cat standing and mimicking the general stance of human discomfort indicating that the cat wants to go to the bathroom. In the bottom the text states, "Cats everywhere are having a hard time smelling their litter boxes." This statement is shown as being sponsored by the Fresh Step company, a company that deals with cat litter.

Analysis: Being an advertising major it's actually pretty exciting to have so many topics relating to advertising. Here in this advertising, the company creates a claim that cats "everywhere" are having a hard time smelling their litter boxes, thus the expected conclusion would be to get fresher cat litter, or more specifically Fresh Step cat litter. This claim is faulty tho because there is no authority to the claim, thus anyone could have simply stated it without us knowing if it's an actual fact. Also, although the advertisement is generally humorous, I have no past experience with Fresh Step as a brand, and thus have no reason to believe that cats will be able to smell it better than other competing brands besides a picture of a cat who's actions are personified to show that he/she really needs to pee.

Repair my SLEEP ZzZzZzz

Repairing/ Fixing Arguments

Broken Argument: 
Errol has a ton of homework and midterms due this week. So Errol does not sleep well.

Analysis/Breakdown:

• In this argument, the author is creating the stretch by concluding that Errol does not sleep well because Errol has a ton homework and midterms due this week.
• Because there is no connecting premise between the claim and the conclusion, there is no "glue" that ties these two together. 
• From this argument, how is the reader or audience supposed to know that Errol could've not slept well due to several other reasons?
• Errol's lack of sleep could be attributed to too much partying, working several jobs, learning dance routines, or maybe he just doesn't like sleeping. 

Necessary sentence: 
To make this sentence valid, the writer should input "Errol doesn't get to sleep because he is avidly researching, studying and writing papers and blogs for his classes." By having this sentence, the options of other scenarios as to why Errol is currently lacking sleep is out ruled as the inputted sentence would clearly focus the reason for Errol's lack of sleep due to large number of midterms he had in the week.

Valid Argument: Errol has a ton of homework and midterms this week. Errol doesn't get to sleep because he is avidly researching, studying and writing papers and blogs for his classes. So Errol does not sleep well.

Oooh you just said a __________

One subject that I found particularly interesting in these readings were the content fallacies from Chapter 11 of the Epstein text. I found this interesting because it listed a bunch of common mistakes or points of arguments that people make that are easily identifiable. Most of these I've seen used in personal arguments or in television, and some unfortunately I've even used. But because of the chapter's ability to easily refer to real-life situations, I found the concepts much easier than the current argument analyzing we've been doing in our reading and thus much more fun to read. An example of fallacies I enjoyed learning more about was things like Drawing the line, Phony refutation, False Dilemma, Slippery Slope, and etc. Now if I'm ever in an argument, I know that I'll be better equipped with knowing how to label the other person's content fallacy and I'll be able to professionally state them instead of generalizing and saying "nope. your wrong".

Your either WITH us or AGAINST us!...or not....or maybe both....or neither.

A content fallacy that I have seen in countless arguments is the False Dilemma fallacy. In numerous political debates, television broadcasts, movie plot lines, protests, and personal arguments, false dilemma is usually used as a dramatic resolution to a heated multi-sided argument. False Dilemma describes the fallacy where one claims the false use of "or" in an argument to make it seem as if their are no additional options than the ones given, when in fact there might be many.

For example: Either Errol is smart and gets an A or is stupid and gets an F in blogging.

Although, Errol being smart would help towards getting an A and being less of an intellectual might draw him closer to an F, one cannot assume that the subject is black and white. Errol can be smart, but after forgetting to submit his blogs on time could fail the course or could be stupid but still get an A because his "stupidity" could actually just be hidden creativity. Other than that, there are other grades he can get like a B, C, or D and his rate of intelligence doesn't entirely decide which of those he could get. Some factors could be how responsible he is, time management, and internet accessibility. Thus, it would be a fallacy to input "or" between this sentence because it would create a meaningless close-minded argument. It's like if friends fight with each other and yells "Your either with us or against us". But what if your not even friends? Then you can just yell back "Don't give me a false dilemma, I don't even know you" and walk away. At least that argument would be correct.

I wrote this post on time, so therefore I should get an A. Yes?

1 I’m on my way to school. 2 I left five minutes late. 3 Traffic is heavy. 4 Therefore, I’ll be late for class. 4 So I might as well stop and get breakfast.

Argument: Yes
Conclusion: I’ll be late to class, so I should stop and get breakfast.
Additional premises needed? If I left five minutes late to school and the traffic is heavy, then I’ll be late for class miss most of my class today. Therefore, If I’m going to miss most of my class I might as well stop and get breakfast.
Identify any sub argument: (1,2,3 support 4.) ( 2.3.4 supports 5.) 
Good argument? No, because the argument has content fallacies (Confusing subjective claim) and violates a principle of rational discussion (Relevance). Being late to class doesn’t mean that one should entirely skip it to go eat breakfast. What if there was a pop quiz at the end? Or homework/ group assignments that were worked on or given in the duration of the class? Therefore, just because this person was late and might possibly miss most of their class, it doesn’t mean that they should stop and get breakfast, thus completely missing the entire class.

Like every one of these assignments, these exercises have been useful to understanding the complexities of arguments and the different fallacies and structural mistakes they can possibly have. Now when creating arguments, I’ll make sure to implement these in order to create a much better persuasive argument. Also, I could use these skills learned from the assignment to analyze future political debates so I could see which politician is well versed.

Leadership

Share one concept not discussed in detail:

One concept that I definitely found interesting was the chapter on Leadership in the Group Communication text. Being involved in various organizations and holding various leadership positions in the past and currently, I feel that this chapter was extremely personal and allowed me to reflect on my years of experience. Starting off, I liked how the text categorized a person's personal method of implementing leadership into four different styles (authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire). Reading this, I kinda referred them to different systems of governing (i.e authoritarian = communism, consultative = democracy. and laissez faire = anarchy) which I found interesting. Amusingly enough, I've actually implemented all these different types of leadership in different moments of my life. Thus, reading the detail of each category brought up some funny memories as well as other personal recollections. Through reading this, I've learned to reflect on what type of leader I am today and what I could do in the future to do even better, and essentially be better.

Lost Opportunity

Although both factors are in an argument, there is a difference between Strong and Valid arguments. 

Weak/Valid Argument Example :
Errol got offered a job today at 10-2
Errol had class 10-2
So Errol did not take the job because he had class. -__-

Strong/Valid Argument Example:
Errol didn't take a job today. 
So Errol didn't get paid for that job.
 
There are both examples of valid arguments but they differ in strength. The first one, although it's valid, the argument is bad because Errol could've not taken the job because he overslept or didn't check his schedule properly but it doesn't entirely mean he didn't he take it solely because he had class at the same time. The second example is similar but actually stronger because the conclusion is an actual direct result of the initial premise. there is no way that the conclusion can be true without the premise being plausible.

Born This Way

Invalid/ Valid  & Strong/ Weak Arguements.

Turns out that evaluating an argument's validity and strength is more complex than just simple analysis. In the Epstein text, the author states how there are three tests to measuring an argument's persuasiveness.

1. The premises are plausible - reasoning could be true.
2. The premises are more plausible than the conclusion- check if the conclusion is an appropriate result from the reasons being given.
3. The argument is valid or strong - Overall reasoning of argument is true. 

 An example of this would be:

Filipinos like to sing kareoke, dance, and study nursing.
Errol is Filipino 
So Errol is musically gifted and generally awesome.

Analysis: The argument is valid because the premise of Errol being Filipino is a fact and therefore true, also the conclusion is known to be true as well. The argument is weak though because the premise of Filipinos liking to sing, dance, and nurse isn't generalized to ALL Filipinos so therefore Errol being musically gifted and awesome doesn't have to be because he is Filipino but could be because of other reasons. Maybe it's because he's been trained on several instruments, active in various clubs and orgs, or maybe he was born this way? Nonetheless, even if the premises are true and conclusion correct, the argument is weak and therefore bad.

Objective VS. Subjective

Going through a normal day, one unconsciously comes across a variety of objective and subjective claims made by anyone you might interact with. Whether your parents, friends, teachers, and even yourself, everyone essentially creates persuasive claims that can be categorized as either objective or subjective. One of the claims, subjective, is related to one's personal standards. For example, I personally like this Filipino delicacy named "balut", which is basically a hard boiled duck egg with a developed duck inside. Well ironically, I was watching a reality show named "Fear Factor" one day only to see contestants fearing to eat this "disgusting" food. Now although I think it tastes great, other people from different cultures and preferences might find it "gross" thus my personal favor makes my claim subjective. In contrast, an objective claim is usually factual information but generally could be any statement that is impersonal from the speaker making the claim. A random example could be when I lost my wallet and had to state the last time I had it. Because I'm simply giving away a location, I'm not putting any personal input into my response, thus it becomes objective. 

Just Like Sparknotes

Hey you guys, my name is Errol Villasanta and here is my attempt to concentrate 19 years of my life into a paragraph, hopefully my years of english class has prepared me for this! In a nutshell, I was born in the Philippines at April 15, 1992 and flew to the U.S when I was 5. From there, my parents constantly aimed to achieve the American Dream and moved where the jobs were, so I was pretty much raised around the Bay Area. I would consider myself a social creative in regards to the type of things I like. For example, I've played several instruments, sing, dance, tinker with modern media and favor socializing. Thus accordingly, my major in SJSU is advertising and I currently hold positions as a Market Associate for A.S, Google Ambassador, and etc. I've been called friendly, social, and active from others and see myself as pretty well rounded in my abilities. I always disliked writing these things because it's such an easy way of false familiarizing yourself with somebody through a concentrated jumble of main points and text, just like sparknotes to a novel. But alas for the sake of people with short attention spans, here is a skeleton, a summary, a sparknote to my life.