Reasoning in a Chain and the Slippery Slope

Week 9, Post 3

While reading the book, I stumbled upon "reasoning in a chain and the slipper slope," which is located in chapter 6 (Compound Claims) of the book. The definition of a slippery slope argument provided by the book says, "A slippery slope argument is a bad argument that uses a chain of conditionals, at least one of which is false or dubious." I didn't quite understand how one simple premise could turn an argument into a slippery slope. However, after researching online, I came across a website that explains the slippery slope argument in depth.

http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/slope.htm

I learned that if the guidelines are not followed, an argument with a false premise turns into a slippery slope. If one premise is not true, then the whole argument is useless and invalid. When one argument is false then it becomes a chain reaction occurs because the other premises are also invalid and it goes down a slippery slope. The "camel's nose in the tent," the "give and inch," the "crack in the foundation" are also names for the "slippery slope" argument.

Major Course Assignment

Week 9, Post 2

Assignment #1, Critical Thinking in News and Politics," was very useful because it allowed us to use the materials we learned in this class and apply it to a real article. Each member was assigned a part in the paper. Doing so, I only focused on my assigned section which made it easier for me to fully understand what I had to do. I thought that by breaking down each component of the essay, it showed us how we were able to focus on the premises and the conclusion of the argument in the article. My role in assignment #1 was to find a "description" and define the difference between an argument and the description in the article. After concentrating on my part of the assignment, it gave me a better understanding of what occurs in articles and how the author writes can persuade the readers. I was able to see the difference between what is factual and what a premise is.

General Claims and Their Contradictories & Some Valid and Invalid Forms

Week 9, Post 1

General claims lack a definite idea about all of part of a collection. A contradictory of a claim is the opposite truth of a claim. Using words such as "all" and "some," can change the meaning of a general claim to its contradictory claim.

In chapter 8, it states:
All means "Every single one, no exceptions" or "Every single one, and there is at least one."
Some means "At least one" or "At least one, but not all."

Claim:
All college students study for midterms.
Contradictory:
Some college students don't study for midterms.

Although an argument may sound good, it may not be in a valid form. Writing an argument directly, it is more likely to be a stronger argument. However, writing an argument backwards can make the argument weak or even invalid because it overlooks possibilities.

Direct way of reasoning with "all":
All dancers can count beats.
Juan is a dancer.
Therefore, Juan can count beats.

Arguing backwards with "all":
All dancers can count beats.
Juan can count beats.
Therefore, Juan is a dancer.

Juan does not have to be a dancer to count beats, he can be a musician. Arguing backwards limited the possibilities making the argument weak and invalid.

False Dilemmas

Week 7, Post 3

In the book, Critical Thinking, the definition of a false dilemma is a bad usage of "or" in a claim is false or implausible to exclude possibilities. Although the claims of the argument are valid, it may not be a good.  Using "or" only limits the possibilities one can have in an argument; it excludes any other opportunities or alternatives.

I found this section in the book extremely helpful because it was often said that in an argument only if the premises are true it is unlikely that the conclusion is false. However, even though the premises are true in a false dilemma, it is not the complete truth because using "or" makes it seem that the argument is narrowed with limited options. However, I feel that using false dilemmas get the message across to others more and I think it is quite common. I am positive that everyone has used a false dilemma in their lifetime as least once. I know I have used this tactic before, I just did not know there was a name for it until now.

Refuting an Argument

Week 7, Post 2

So far the book had been teaching us how to make the best strong, valid arguments but never how to refute back. There are two ways to refute; either directly or indirectly. We also learned how to repair arguments however when an argument is needs to be fixed, we can use it to our advantage. Instead of repairing the argument, we can follow the following guidelines to refute:

Direct ways of refuting an argument
1. Show that at least one of the premises is dubious.
2. Show that the argument isn't valid or strong.
3. Show that the conclusion is false.

Dan says mosquito repellents are a waste of money and it does not work. The only time Dan does not get a mosquito bite when he goes camping is during his swim in the lake. Therefore, to save money and keep mosquitoes away from camp sites are to camp near a lake.

Directly: Rena can argue back by saying that repellents work if you use it all over your body and Dan only put it on his arms and got bit by a mosquito on his leg.

Indirectly: Rena does not refute back but instead shows Dan that his conclusion is false. Mosquitoes lay their eggs in water which means there are actually more mosquitoes at campsites near lakes or ponds. 

Compound Claims

Week 7, Post 1

According to the Epstein, two or more claims that are come together as one claim is a compound claim.
To make a compound claim by combining two different claims with words such as "or," and "and." A claim that connects the two is called alternatives. A contradictory of a claim contains an "opposite truth-value" in any possible situation. A negation of a claim is another way of contradictory by using words like "not".

For breakfast, Paul will eat cereal with milk or he will eat dry cereal.

Using an alternative claim, the word "or" was used for two independent claims to come together.

Claim 1: Paul will eat cereal with milk.
Claim 2: Paul will eat dry cereal.

Both of the claims were not confusing because both of the premises are not false and contradicting. The compound claim is not an argument because it is not a cause and effect situation with words like "because." By creating one compound with claim 1 and claim 2, it is simpler and it makes the topic of the argument clear.

Inferring and Implying

Week 6, Post 3

Inferring is a person decides to choose a claim and make that claim the conclusion of the argument.

Implying occurs when a person decides to not declare what the conclusion is but instead implies conclusion in the argument.

I thought chapter 5, part E in the book, "Inferring and Implying" was very useful. The two definitions are very different and often times I get it confused. After reading this section in the book, I got a better understanding when someone infers or implies the premises and conclusion in and argument. When someone infers a claim, he or she is jumping into conclusions by taking a claim and turning it into a conclusion. Some arguments are flawed, therefore assuming a premise as a conclusion occurs. When the conclusion is implied, the argument is obvious and stating the conclusion is not needed. The argument is strong and valid enough that it is not necessary to give the conclusion because it is evident.