From no business to slow business.

I really enjoyed all of Chapter 13 of Epstein because it can be directly related to certain concepts of my major. I am an advertising major, and we are all about pitching a product or service, and selling it by putting all the best feet forward. It’s a bit manipulative toward customers, and that’s what Chapter 13 illustrates in terms of numbers.

I especially noticed the “two times zero is still zero” concept that is really very applicable to advertising. It’s kind of like when a new restaurant is promoting their menu, and say “We served three times as many tables as yesterday.”

Okay... But what if yesterday, there was only one table to be served? Then that means today, they still only served three tables and while the words “three times as many” appeals to us because it sounds like a great gain, but it’s such a misleading claim that we may just contrarily be eating at a very... slow... restaurant.

First assignment as a foundation.

The first assignment served as a great foundation to begin as a student taking a critical thinking course. The beginning chapters of Epstein’s Critical Thinking, taking in chapters one all the way up to nine, involves digesting so many different ideas at once--all in which these ideas are probably new in terms of the way students actually analyze each claim and premise and conclusion. Having to take these ideas in was a little overwhelming at first, let alone having to apply these new concepts to a random article we picked off the internet.

Reading these articles, we had to ask several questions. Is this a claim? Can I believe it’s true? How can I back it up? Are these premises and claim good, bad, valid, or strong?

Right off the bat, this first assignment conditioned our analyzing eyes to answer these questions and measure the validity and greatness of a claim and our analysis of it. It seems after this assignment, I was more trained than ever to throw out a judgment call with the use of all the critical thinking concepts, because I was forced to exercise these concepts to current events.

Numbers: Me vs You

I’m probably a loser for this, but I thought the “apples and oranges” concept was cute. Well, it’s more of the name the name that’s cute rather than the actual concept... But anyways. What the “apples and oranges” concept is exactly, is a numerical comparison where it doesn’t make sense to compare the items, as stated in Epstein’s Chapter 13 on Numbers. And the example provided in the text was all about ratio... It’s kind of like saying, I’m better than you in basketball because I made 5 shots and you only made 2.

Yeah, initially it sounds like I truly am better. But the reality of it?
I made 5 shots... Out of 10.
You made 2 shots... Out of 2.

Who’s the more accurate one now? Definitely YOU!

Without that unstated comparison, the judgment call of the entire claim is easily misconstrued. Numbers can seem so certain, but are actually just as vague as words can be. Imagine if the team captain heard those initial stats (me making 5 shots, and you making 2 shots), and what if he chose me? He just chose a player with a 50% accuracy rate against a 100% accuracy rate!?

Soldiers and firemen.

In Chapter 12 of Epstein, ALL of part B. “An Example” really just blew my mind. It was like reading a never ending chain of rebuttals in an argument. It really went on for about two pages critiquing the strength and validity of the firemen-soldier argument. This entire section really goes to show that your point may never really be proven, as long as the person you are arguing with doesn’t over-analyze your premises in depth!

It was kind of crazy. It all started with the comparison:

“We don’t blame firemen for fires.
Firemen and fires are like soldier and wars.
Therefore, we should not blame soldiers for war.”

Epstein even stated “This sounds pretty reasonable.” Then he went on for another page and a half asking... And? So what?

When reasoning by analogy, you must be specific, down to the nitty gritty similarities between the two things you are comparing. The more specific (of course with relevance), the better the argument will be.

Key things in analogy reasoning: Details and relevance, and avoid the dubious.

Brinks: Appeal to fear

This is an advertisement for Brinks Home Security alarms systems. This is the perfect example for a claim that appeals to fear. As viewers, this advertisement first lets us relate to the woman in her home, doing her natural thing as we would in our own house at night (besides leaving all the windows open, that was kinda dumb haha). Then it turns such a typical scenario into a petrifying moment of attempted burglary. That’s scary, and that would definitely appeal to fear! The initial unstated conclusion of this ad would be, “Your house could get broken into, so you should get a Brinks Home Security alarm system.”
Then the ad later states, “rapid response and piece of mind for your home or business” which makes it a little more plausible. This is not a bad argument because it is reasonable to believe that the rapid response from Brinks will protect you in times of burglary, thus you will have a piece of mind.

Appeal to the (feel-good) emotion.

A premise that appeals to the emotion says you should do something because you feel a certain way, as it says in Chapter 10 of Epstein. To some extent, appealing to emotion is necessary because every decision we make is party based on how our decisions make us feel. However, “that does not mean we should be swayed entirely by our emotions.” On a personal level, we can make some rash decisions when we let our emotions control the way we react to things. That’s why this entire chapter made a lot of sense and is perfect reasoning to simple living as well as arguing.

What struck me most was the feel-good argument, just because it provoked a little giggle with the text example. A feel-good argument is one used when hence, you just want to feel good about yourself.

As the text explained, for example, is when a student gets a bad grade. They argue for a passing grade because they really enjoyed the class and appreciated the professor’s nice and fair attitude.

It isn’t necessarily a good argument, but it might make the student feel good.

Truth tables: DISJUNCTIONS

What I found really interesting was the Truth Tables.

It was mostly intriguing because of the initial complexity it shown right before you started reading. Glancing over the pages, it just looked like a bunch of A’s and B’s in ridiculous charts, but they’re actually really helpful after studying the lesson.

Let’s take the Disjunction (Or-claim) for example.
A disjunction claim is false only if both parts are false. Otherwise, the claim is true.

So my birthday is coming up, and I was brainstorming some ideas for birthday festivities and that’s when I said to myself, “I will travel to Europe on my birthday or I just won’t have a birthday at all.”

I can tell you right now, traveling to Europe is FALSE.
And you can’t just pretend you don’t have a birthday... That’s FALSE.

Thus, it is false.

I could have said, “I could travel to Europe on my birthday or I could just have a little party.” These are both truthful possibilities, thus it is true.

Conjunctions and Disjunctions

Being knowledgeable about the different forms of compound claims, and how to analyze it's truth-value, is one of the most useful techniques in arguing and analyzing. And what was most interesting was looking at all of the different truth-tables for each compound word/phrase and noticing how CAREFUL you have to be in analysis. Just one false versus one truth can be the entire difference.

For example:

There are three points on a triangle and there are three points on a square.

For this Conjunction (and-claim), it is false. In order for a conjunction to be true, both parts must be true, or it is otherwise false. Although it is true that there are three points on a triangle, the second part of this claim is false.

On the other hand:

There are three points on a triangle or there are three points on a square.

For this Disjunction (or-claim), it is true. Both alternatives for this claim is true, therefore the whole thing is true. In order for this one to be false, both parts must be false.

Chapter 8: Contradictories

In Chapter 8 of Epstein regarding General Claims and their Contradictories, I'm going to admit that I got kind of lost, moreso in a sense that I had to read, and re-read, and re-read...

"All," "some," "no," and "only," are common to use in regular discussion. Those are four words that I can use so nonchalantly and it wasn't until I read this chapter that I realized the use of these words could be totally bad, weak, or invalid, depending on how I utilize my arguments. The definitions of these words weren't the misleading parts that I had to re-read though. It's just interesting how meticulous the definitions get concerning critical thinking and arguing efficiently.

The contradictories was the confusing part! You could totally think you're saying something with the opposite truth value, but contrarily not!

Here's an example... I was at boiling crab the other day and I got a mild spice on my fries. (Which isn't even really spicy to me.) My friend says, "Some of them are really spicy!"

And before this chapter, I would think the contradictory would be to say, "Some of them are not really spicy." HOWEVER... the contradictory holding the most opposite truth value would be, "Not even one is spicy."

Kinda tricky, but so true when you think about the correct contradictories.

Interesting concept: I'll go if you go.

Chapter 6 in Epstein covered different forms of arguments using conditionals. Again, these forms are very standard and common in regular discussion, but it gets interesting when the textbook breaks everything down. The more technical the text is, the more complex the argument seems. But it could be something as simple as the direct and indirect way of reasoning with conditionals...

The DIRECT form is:

If A, then B.
A

So B.

The INDIRECT form is:
If A, then B.

Not A

So not B.

These are both valid arguments, however not necessarily good arguments, for premises could be false. For example, you hear about a big party coming up and you’re debating whether or not to go. This is probably the most common thing to hear or say: “I’m going if she’s going.” To put it into context.

DIRECT:
If she’s going, then I’m going.
She is going

So I’m going.

INDIRECT:
If she’s going, then I’m going.
She is not going
So I’m not going.

This is all valid. But what if she does in fact end up showing up to the party after all? Or what if she is just telling people she doesn’t want to go but she really does? This argument would then be valid but not good, due to a false premise. But I hope she goes, so that I go!

Chapter 7: Fuddruckers edition.

In Chapter 7 of Epstein’s Critical thinking, I think the most interesting concept was that of “ridicule.”

It’s common, it’s rude, and hence, it’s most definitely ridiculous. In every day conversation, you hear ridicule all the time. Especially from older brothers like mine. The other day we were at a Fuddruckers and I said, “Man I don’t know if I should order a salad, the Works, or with onion rings or...”--And I kind of continued for a while--”They all sound pretty good.”

This is when he says, “Well shoot, you may as well just order the whole menu.”

For one thing, ridicule isn’t even an argument.
In fact, the text explains that ridicule is “a worthless device: it ends arguments, belittles the other person, and makes enemies.” It’s crazy how typical a concept such as ridicule is in normal/rational discussion, but how useless it is when explained in context. It didn’t even help me decide what to order.