In Chapter 15, Epstein talks about cause and effect. One particular section I found to be interesting is criteria for cause and effect. Epstein provides a list of necessary conditions  for there to be cause and effect. This includes:

1.    The cause happened ( the claim describing it is true)
2.    The effect happened (the claim describing it is true)
3.     The cause precedes the effect.
4.        It is nearly impossible for the cause to happen(be true) and the effect not to happen(be false), given the normal conditions.
5.       The cause makes a difference- if the cause had not happened(been trye) the effect would not have happened (been true)
6.       There is no common cause.

Often times in an argument people make the mistake of reversing cause and effect. You have to make sure that when using causal claims, the event that occurs first is the cause and leads to another event, which is the effect.

Mission Critical

I found the mission critical website to be a lot more useful than the cause and effect website. It was easy to understand and to the point, and it gave a good description on the different types of reasoning. It provides the basics on each type or reasoning, and it also explained different arguments. The website described inductive and deductive reasoning. I also really liked the way the page was organized into different headings and sections with links to click on. It looks a lot more organized rather than just seeing a big and long paragraph. Personally my favorite section was on the different fallacies. For each fallacy listed, you can click on it and it explains each fallacy in depth as well as provides an example to help make it easier for people to understand. To further help your understanding, the website provides little exercises for you to complete and help you review each term or concept. Overall, I thought this website was useful in helping me understand certain concepts.

Cause and Effect

I thought that this website about cause and effect was useful in helping me as well as the rest of the class, to better understand the concept.  The website explains that  causation is one of the most important uses for inductive reasoning. The author of this webpage chose a perfect scenario to help illustrate his example. Each event that occurred caused another event to occur. The biker moves into the traffic lane, which causes the driver to slam on the brakes, and then a following car slams into them as a result. The website also provides two rules to remember when dealing with causation.

1. The cause must precede the event in time. On one hand, arguments that have the effect before the cause are examples of the relatively rare fallacy of reverse causation. One the other, arguments whose only proof of causation is that the effect followed the cause are examples of fallacious post hoc reasoning.
2. Even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation. Other possible explanations for such a strong correlation include coincidence, reversed causation, and missing something that is the cause of both the original "cause" and its purported "effect."

Fallacy Of Composition

In Chapter 12, another concept that Epstein discusses that I thought was interesting was the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is to argue that what is true of the individual is therefore true of the group, or what is true of the group is therefore true of the individual. The fallacy of composition is also inferring from the fact that every part of a whole has a given property that the whole also has that property.  So for example:   A)All the songs on this CD last less than an hour. B) The album lasts less than an hour. This would not be true, because the CD could itself be a long CD, composed of many short tracks. This example could be found on http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/composition/

We see examples also in our everyday lives. Another way of putting it, is guilty by association. We assume that because something is true of a group, it must be true of the individual. For example, Rosie saw a bunch of girls from a sorority getting drunk and smoking, so she assumed that since Meg is in a sorority, she drinks and smokes as well.

Causal Reasoning in depth

To be honest, I didn't really have a problem with the types of reasoning, I thought they were all  pretty easy to understand, especially with the links we were given. However, I understand that sometimes things can still be a little confusing and the concepts may not always be clear. Sometimes we just need a little bit more of an explanation or a really good example for it to click in our brains and so for this blog I chose to talk about Causal Reasoning. This is just a fancy name for something we all know better as cause and effect. We all know that in most cases, in order for one event to occur, another event has to cause it. We normally call the first event the cause and the second event the effect, because the second event is the consequence of the first.
Here's an example:  A cause: It began to rain.  An effect: Janice put on a coat and her rain boots.
So when we bring it back to the subject of Critical Thinking, and we apply it to Causal Reasoning, we simply use cause and effect in our argument. So an example of  Causal Reasoning would be: " If you studied for your test last night, you wouldn't have failed."

Different Types of Reasoning

Reasoning By Analogy- A comparison becomes reasoning by analogy when it is part of an argument: On one side of the comparison we draw a conclusion, so on the other side we should conclude the same.
An example of reasoning by analogy would be " Kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray." This is a comparison, but it's meant as an argument.

Sign Reasoning- asserts that 2 or more things are so closely related that the presence or absence of one indicates the presence of absence of another. For example whenever we see a spider web we make the assumption that where ever a spider web is, a spider is nearby, usually the one that spun the web.

Causal Reasoning-  occurs when we have good reason to believe events of one sort (causes) are systematically related to events of some other sort (effects) and it may be possible for us to alter our environment by producing or preventing the occurrence of certain kinds of events. An example would be "You wouldn't have tripped and scraped your knee if you tied your shoelaces."

Reasoning By Criteria-  In a logical argument you spend a lot of time establishing the criteria as valid first. In a less logical situation, you assume the criteria are correct minimizing the time spent on  discussion about them. Criteria which appeal to common values are likely to be easily accepted.  For example if I want to get a laptop, I would use reasoning by criteria to tell my parents that getting a laptop will help me stay updated with my emails, and getting my homework done in the convenience of my own home.

Reasoning By Example-  giving examples in an argument. " Mom can I go to a party tonight?" "No you can't because didn't you hear about your cousin who went to a party? Everyone was drinking and smoking weed and having sex, so I don't want you to get involved in those things."

Inductive Reasoning- Uses past experiences and observation. For example, my brother used Aveeno lotion before and it made his skin break out in hives. So now he refuses to use that particular lotion because he doesn't want the same thing that happened last time to occur again.

Deductive Reasoning-  the premise is true so the conclusion must be true. Example: You can not drive legally in California unless you have a drivers' license. Anna has a drivers' license, therefore she is a legal driver.

Page 195 Objective #3

This is the advertisement I chose to illustrate the way people use an appeal to fear. I think this demonstrates the concept of appealing to fear perfectly. The caption says "Children of parents who smoke, get to heaven earlier." The child depicted in the advertisement is very cute and innocent looking. You can see that there is a cloud of smoke around her head to form a halo. This advertisement is meant to scare people enough to choose not to smoke. Especially if they are parents and have children. This stresses the importance of the risk of secondhand smoke. By appealing to fear, this advertisement would make people think twice about smoking, especially around a child. Someone would see this child's innocent face, and wouldn't want to be the cause of a child's death. Also, no parent would ever want to have to experience the loss of a child. The message is very simple, don't smoke around your child if you don't want to kill them from second hand smoke.

Appeals to Emotion

In Chapter 10 Epstein talks about using appeals to emotion. He states that emotions do and should play a role in our reasoning. We cannot begin to make a good decision if we do not consider the significance in our emotional life. An appeal to emotion in an argument is a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way. Throughout the chapter he talks about different aspects of  appeal to emotion such as an appeal to pity, appeal to fear, appeal to vanity, and appeal to spite. Epstein also discusses the concept of calling in your debts and how it appeals to the opposite of spite, " You should believe or do something if you owe someone favor."
The appeal to emotion that is most striking to me is an appeal to pity. I'll admit that I can be convinced if someone or something does a good job of making me feel sorry for someone. For example, the other day I ran into a woman who was collecting money for her child that was suffering from leukemia and she was looking for any donations to help pay for treatment. Of course after seeing the picture, and seeing the pleading look in her eyes, there was no way I could turn my back and not contribute even a little bit. So, in this sense, the woman used an appeal to my emotion and made me feel pity so that I could give her some money.