Inferring and Implying

I had to reread this section of chapter 4 to understand it completely.

By inferring and implying someone could be leaving out information that could make or break your argument. Implying in the conclusion means that you say something without saying it. Inferring is saying something and letting the mind understand it in the wrong or right way. By inferring and implying meaning can be lost in the argument.

In a normal conversation saying, “Brittany drives like she is in the Grand Prix” implies that Brittany is a fast driver.

In a normal conversation saying, “Brittany is not a suitable role model for young girls” is infers ideas like “Brittany is a slut”.

If we were to imply or infer, the information provided must offer a conclusion that is obvious. You assume that the person reading your argument has an equal understanding of the subject or has the ability to not jump to conclusions.

Advertising on the Internet

http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/messaging-internet/mobile-tv/index.jsp

The above link is promoting AT & T Mobile TV. I found the advertisement with the link to this site on latimes.com.

AT & T Mobile TV claims to guarantees crisp clear video and audio TV straight from your phone. Using the summary of when to accept and when to reject a claim on page 90 of our text I figured that I can accept this claim.

We accept or reject claims from personal experiences. I can accept this claim to be true because I have a friend who has a phone that TV is available and it does stream video and audio. It does not contradict any claim I know to be true.

We also accept or reject claims from other sources. The claim is made by AT & T, a large corporation considered to be one of the best in the nation. If I were to be a loyal customer of AT & T, their claim would be accepted because of their expertise. However we would reject the claim if the reputable authority has reason to mislead consumers. The ad was not found in a reputable journal or reference, so we could reject the claim based on the fact it does not come from a dependable source. We can also reject the claim because advertisements are not usually reliable and have only one motive which is to get a contract with AT & T.

An Argument Needing Repairing

Here is my example of an argument that isn’t a rational argument:

Birds fly. Birds are Winnie’s favorite animals.

Analysis: There is no rational argument in these statements. The premise is birds fly and that birds are Winnie’s favorite animals. There is no conclusion to this argument. If we were to add, “Winnie wishes she could fly.” A conclusion would be given that makes the first two statements more understandable. We could also delete the first sentence because this premise is not significant to the confirming the conclusion.

Being able to recognize an argument that needs to be repaired and knowing how to repair it is important. That is how we are able to make more effective arguments without but called out on being wrong. The argument can become strong or valid by repairing the argument. A premise or conclusion is added. The premise has to be plausible and would seem plausible to others. Also, the premise is more plausible than the conclusions.

Culture and Group Communication

In our Essential Guide to Group Communication book, on page 55, there is a section titled “Group Communication in Cultural Perspectives: Cultural Diversity in the Workforce”. This section caught my eye because it has a lot to do with the work force today.

The segment gave an example of a work place that included a variety of people. Race, age, and experience defined the group. Each person was individually unique from the others. What connects them is their work at Universal Industries. Because the group is so diverse the segment asks some questions about what problems and benefits this situation creates for the company.

The questions the segment asks at the end brought a lot of more questions to my attention. It made me realize how important communicating and communicating effectively impact a person’s work life. Sometimes working with such a diverse group can bring up situations that must be handled in the right way. Cultural differences can be good because you learn about other people and their lives and histories. If I were the director in charge, I would make sure that everyone talked about things that may not be appropriate to say or do out of respect for each other. Communication prevents dilemmas and will benefit everyone by openly communicating.

Straw Man in a Rational Discussion

Sometimes when someone is having a ration discussion with another person, a statement can be said that can easy be changed to sound or mean something else. By misrepresenting what the person says, it can lead to confusion and then agreement. The book on page 91 states, “It’s easier to knock down someone’s argument if you misrepresent it…” which is exactly my example.

Lily: We should water the plants every day.

Rose: We water the plants every week. There is no point in watering it every day.

Lily: Are you saying you want our plants to die?

Rose: Are you saying you want to waste the earth’s precious water?

Rose and Lily argue about how many times a week they should water the plants. Lily thinks that Rose wants to kill the plants by watering them only once a week. Lily “put words in Rose’s mouth” and Rose did the same to Lily. Both Rose and Lily question each other to justify their arguments.

This type of argument is common in everyday discussions between two people. You pretty much try to justify what you are saying by rewording what the other is saying.

Analyzing an Argument

Number 2.
I’m on my way to school. (1) I left five minutes late (2). Traffic is heavy (3). Therefore, I’ll be late for class (4). So I might as well stop and get breakfast. (5)

Argument: Yes.
Conclusion: I will be late for class, even if I stop for breakfast.
Additional premises needed? Before sentence 5, I would add a statement that would explain why being late class after eating breakfast is no different from going straight to class already late. By doing so it would, add another justification to having breakfast.
Identify any sub-arguments: Sentences 1, 2, and 3 are independent sub-arguments.
Good Argument?
This argument was good because it was pretty straight forward. The premise was clear and it validated the conclusion. It may have been an illogical due to the fact that it justifies it with a weak premise.

This exercise was useful because you break down the argument. By breaking it down, you identify the key components every argument should have. And then analyze the validity and effectiveness of the argument.

Leaders and Decisions

When reading about Leaders in groups I got a better understanding of what it means to be an effective leader. The different types of leaders influences the group dynamic significantly. The leader controls the whole group by making decisions and having the most influence over group members. The type of leader though determines how the group is.

It was easier to understand the different types of leaders by applying them to world leaders today. You can recognize the type of leader by the type of government.

The United States (democracy) President Barack Obama would have a mix of consultative and participative leadership. He works with his Cabinet to determine what direction he wishes the government to move in. While also working with leaders in the Senate and House to achieve a desired goal.

In Britain, the Queen (constitutional monarchy) has a laissez-faire leadership. She is more of a figure head than a political leader. Though she has some authority in her land, she does not directly make laws or enforce them.

In the case of China (communist), it’s more authoritarian leadership style by President Hu Jintao, more or less. Making decisions and having the most control over the government and its people.

All leaders have their own personal ways of leading but they all take some shape or form of one of the types of leaders mentioned above.

Strong and Valid Arguments

Strong arguments have stronger roots in the truth than valid arguments. Harder to prove wrong, strong arguments are more certain with better reasoning. Valid arguments are also true however differ due to the fact that they are more than one-sided. The person making the argument also has to believe that their points are valid and strong. If there isn’t a reason to argue there is no need for a strong or even valid argument.

Strong Argument: I can grill chicken. You can make parmigiana chicken. You cook dinner tonight.

Valid Argument: I cooked dinner for the whole family yesterday. You cook dinner tonight for the two of us.

These two arguments are valid but I think the example for a strong argument is indeed stronger. By describing what I can cook and what you can cook you can see which one is better, the preferably meal between the two. While the valid argument is just a justification as to why you should cook dinner.

A Good Argument

Mission Peak is 2,517 ft tall. It is quite easy to climb.

Madeline climbed Mission Peak in 45 min.

Mission Peak in Fremont is a local hiking destination. However to argue that it is “easy” to climb may not be reasonable. The argument is plausible but it depends on the person. If an athletic person who does a reasonable amount of exercising can handle the hike up the peak. Being physically fit is probably the best way for a hike to feel “easy” or effortless. But if you are a person who thinks exercising or working out is a challenge that climbing up Mission Peak would be a challenge. The argument would only be valid if a majority of people thought hiking was easy.

Madeline climbing Mission Peak in 45 minutes is a plausible situation. Even though I made this time up, I want you to assume that 45 minutes is what a good time when climbing Mission Peak. We can assume that Madeline is a physically fit person who considered Mission Peak “easy” to climb.

Perspective Claims

Perspective claims use one’s judgement when making claims. They do not describe what something is, they describe how it should be. Perspective claims make statements determining whether it is right or wrong. I found this interesting because it makes a distinction between a person stating “I want candy” and someone replying, “You have too much candy.” It is similar to subjective claims which are also based on personal opinion. However perspective claims focus on whether or not something is right or wrong and is more broad in subjects.

For example, “Chocolate is better than vanilla”, is a subjective claim. Because it focuses on a person’s preferred flavor. It is also a perspective claim because someone is judging and rating its value. Value Judgement means doing more of what’s right and less of what’s wrong.

When reading about perspective claims I thought that parents must often use when teaching their children right and wrong. “You should put more sunblock on”. “You shouldn’t pick at your food.” These type of claims help parents teach their children right from wrong.