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.