Repairing Arguments

In Chapter 4, Epstein  provides  us with a guide to repair arguments. Given an implicit argument that is apparently defective, we are justified in adding a  premise or conclusion if it satisfies all three of the following:
1. The argument becomes stronger or valid.
2. The premises is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.
3. The premise is more plausible than the conclusion.
Often, people leave out information, and so we must repair arguments by adding an unstated premise or an unstated conclusion. We assume that the other person: a) knows about the subject under discussion, b) is able and willing to reason well, c) is not lying.
An example of an argument would be " Michael is dressed nice. That means he's going on a date." This is not a good argument because there could be another explanation as to why Michael is dressing nice, it doesn't have to be a date.  He could be dressing nicely for a job interview. Maybe he has a recital. He doesn't even have to have a specific reason for dressing nicely, maybe he simply just felt like dressing that way.

Interesting Concept

One section in the small text that I thought was interesting as well as useful was "Using Communication Networks."  In any group or organization communication is key. One way groups can communicate effectively  is through networks. The more involved or connected a person is to the participants in an organization or group the more centralized he or she is. According to the text a centralized network is one in which a majority of the communication passes through a small number of participants or maybe even one person. A decentralized network, on the other hand, is one in which many participants have a number of connections to others.
Networking also refers to communicating with others outside of a single organization or group. The thing about networking is that we as college students, don't have to necessarily be part of an organization or company, we do it in our everyday lives. Things such as Facebook and Twitter are the most popular and common. Also, when we exchange phone numbers our information, we are networking. We are meeting new people and profiting from the connection. The key to networking is to have people remember who you are and what services you offer.

Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion

"An argument is a fallacy only if the premise is dubious and no other premises support the conclusion."( Epstein)
I picked the Strawman Fallacy to discuss on this blog. The name of this fallacy paints a clear picture as to what its intent is. Picture yourself about to fight someone. Then you build a person out of straw and you kick it, punch it, and ultimately destroy it. Then you say that you won that fight. The only problem is, the person you were supposed to fight, who is an actual human, and not made out of straw, is still standing there unharmed or untouched, and definitely not beaten. The purpose of using a straw man in an argument is to purposely misrepresent and weaken the position of your opponent. One may leave out key points or quote a person's word out of context. Basically you twist the other person's words and make them look bad.
An example of a strawman would be:

"Dad can we buy some of this juice?"
"No, put it back."
"Why can't we buy it? It has Vitamin C, and Vitamin B and it's good for you!"
" I said no, I'm not buying it."
" Why don't you care about my health, now I'm gonna get sick and die!"

In this dialogue between a child and their father, the child wants to buy juice and tries to convince his dad by saying that it's nutritious and healthy. When the dad refuses, the child claims that his dad doesn't care about his health. Although the dad never said he doesn't care about his son's health, the child is using a straw man to put his dad in a position where he is weak and quite possibly end up just buying the juice.

The Structure of Arguments

My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard. 1 People do not like living next door to such a mess. 2 He never drives any of them. 3 They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. 4 It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values. 5

Conclusion : It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.
Additional premises needed: Since he doesn't drive any of the cars, they are just taking up space. a
The oil that is leaking from the car is making the rest of the neighborhood look bad.
Identify subarguments: 2,3, and 4 are independent and support 1. Then 1 supports conclusion, 5.
Good argument: not strong enough.

To be completely honest, even after completing this exercise, I still am a little  confused. I don't really understand what's going on. If the purpose of this exercise was supposed to help make the concepts easier to understand, then for me personally, it was unsuccessful.

Strong vs Valid Arguments

 An argument is valid of there is no possible way for its premises to be true and its conclusion false (at the same time.) Not every valid or strong argument is good. An argument is strong if there is some way, some possibility, for its premises to be true and its conclusion false at the same time. "The conclusion follows from the premises" means that the argument is valid or strong. An argument is either valid or it is not. There are no degrees to it, or judgment involved. But evaluating the strength of an argument does involve judgment, for it depends on how likely certain possibilities appear. The strength of an argument is a matter of degree, and invalid arguments are classified on a scale from strong to weak.
 An example of a strong argument is " The only planet in the solar system is Earth." An example of a valid argument would be " The earth is round.

Prescriptive Claims

Epstein talks about prescriptive claims and descriptive claims and compares the two. A claim is considered to be descriptive if it says what it is. A claim is prescriptive if it says what should be. In a way, these two claims have the same relationship that subjective and objective claims do. A subjective claim is based more on opinion or a belief in the same way that a prescriptive claim is what a person thinks should be. An objective claim is not based on what others believe, it is based on fact as well as a descriptive claim.
An example of a descriptive claim would be:  "This water is lukewarm."
An example of a prescriptive claim would be: " Cassie should put her water bottle in the fridge."
Epstein goes on to explain that often when people say that something is good, better, best, bad, worse, worst or some other kind of value judgment, they are making a prescriptive claim.

Vague Statement

One of my friends, Sarah, was throwing a surprise birthday party for one of our friends, Jordan. I had texted Sarah and asked her what the address of the house was, and instead of giving me the address she gave me a bunch of vague directions. First she told me " It's by Taco Bell." There is obviously more than one Taco Bell in the world, so that didn't help me much. Next she said, "It's the one at the top of the hill, it's the green house." I was starting to get frustrated, because of course there was more than one green house and it could be any one of those houses. It was taking me forever to get to the party, because my friend kept giving me a bunch of vague statements, rather than just giving me directions that were straightforward and that would get me to the right house in no time. Just when I thought she couldn't be any more vague, she thought she was doing me a favor by saying, "Just go to the house with the white Toyota in front."  I thought to myself, "What kind of Toyota? A Camry? A Tacoma? Am I supposed to guess? Finally I did what I should have done from the very beginning, I called my other friend, and asked if she could give me the directions and address to the house and she did. I got to the party finally, and surprisingly I was on time. It's amazing how much easier life can be with clear statements and directions.