Last Week: Post 3

3). Pick one concept from throughout the semester that you feel can use further discussion.


One concept that I found most useful throughout our Summer Semester was validating the sources that we use as a reference to believe a claim.  I remember one thing that Epstein taught us; use your knowledge and past experience as it can be the most valid reference.  It made me realize a lot of things especially when it comes to believing certain claims.  This learning ties to our first paper.  Our group chose an article on dieting rules that we CAN break and it's alarming how instantly, because it's an article, everyone tends to believe the author right away.  I'm glad we learned how to identity certain supporting claims and if these claims had real facts to back up the author's point of view.  And for the most part, sometimes the author doesn't really use facts but it was more subjective.  It sure surprised me.  And that is why I enjoyed learning about analyzing people's claims or even go back to see what source have they used to sum up their findings.  All in all, always double check on the sources is what I've learned most =)

Last Week: Post 2

2). What was your favorite thing about the class?  What was your least favorite thing about the class?  How can this class be improved?  Again, be specific


My favorite thing about the class was being able to work with other students.  It was fun being able to share ideas or come up with the same findings.  I enjoyed our two group projects very much.  Although, it can be a load of work sometimes, it was worth getting to know our classmates a little bit more.  We all worked so well together and every one was so friendly and nice.  I also enjoyed reading student blogs every single week.  Some of the blogs were super funny to read and relate to.  Because this is a summer online course, my least favorite thing would be piled work for the course.  I do believe that the work is fair but because everything is condense, sometimes the work can be overbearing.  But then again, it could be because I'm taking two summer course so no complaints there.  Hmm, something the class can be improved on... I think I like the no twelve hours limit more than not having a limit =)  Since I'm also full time employed, it was hard to space out my work.

Last Week: Post 1

1). What have you learned in this class over the course of the semester?  Be specific. 


I learned so many different concepts and vocabulary in our COMM41 class.  I have learned to communicate effectively by always being able to analyze the situation.  I remember we started out the class by learning what's a claim.  It may sound easy to understand but after taking this course, presenting a valid claim is not as easy as some people may think.  We also have to have strong premises to back up our claims/arguments.  This class was a lot of fun.  I had a lot of fun reading all the student's blogs and everyday life example.  It really helps me understand everything in a simpler manner.  I would read the assigned chapters then read other student's blog, try to comprehend the material, then write my own blog.  Overall, this class has taught me to be ten times more reasonable and always argue with facts of an open mind.  Thank you for all your support professor, I enjoyed this class much!

Week 9: Post #2

After reviewing and reading the Mission Critical website, in a glance, the whole semester flashed before my eyes.  It's a great study guide and reference tool.  I almost couldn't believe that our summer session is ending.  I've learned so much in our COMM41 class reading through all the chapters.  When I reviewed the Mission Critical website, all the terms and concepts flashed back in my memory.  It was a good summary guide to everything that we've went over in the class.  Although, some of the reading might be new material.  All in all, I have a lot of studying to do before the class' final.  The two months of class sure has gone by quickly, I cannot believe that class is ending soon and I'm a little bit sad.  It was plenty fun working in our groups and applying the course material to our papers.  Many subjects on the website also made me recall both group papers.  I will be using this website for future studying purpose.  Great tool!

Week 9: Post #3

For my third post, I gathered my family of four together to discuss about my second group paper.  My second group paper was on the Red Cross social organizations.  They all enjoyed hearing me read my group paper out loud.  They have all heard of the Red Cross before but after learning more about the organization, it inspired them to do more volunterring work.  They were amazed of our detailed analysis and learned about the pin points of how this organization is valid.  They learned not just to believe certain politics but understood the hard proof of why this organization is life changing to some.  They did not have much to oppose as our team did not either.  They agreed on how credibile this organization is and would even like to sign up for news feed updates.  One thing they learned the most hearing our paper out loud was to always analysis everything in full and make sure we always do our very own fine reserach before supporting an organization.  Not to say that people are out there to get you but to fully understand why people do what they do.  It was fun =)

Week 8: Post #3

When I came across, "The cause makes a difference" in Chapter 15, I found it interesting and fun to read.  An example the book gave was, "Dr. E confidently claims that the wind chime causes the elephants to stay away."  Dr. E then wrote in his diary, "There's a perfect correlation here:  Wind chime up on Tuesday, no elephants."  The problem with this example is that, how accurate is it a fact that wind chimes is the single object keeping the elephants away?  Because there's a possible change that even if the wind chime was not up, elephants would have stayed away.  Hence, "the wind chime doesn't make a difference.  We need to have the cause occur (elephants appearance) for there to be an effect (wind chime to work.)  I've learn in my own example, if I do not do my online homework, I would not get a good grade.  The cause has to make a difference.

Week 8: Post #2

My group chose an article from Yahoo titled, “5 Diet Rules it’s OK to Break” by Lisa Collier Cool to complete our assignment.  We found the main claim to be “Breaking the rules could actually help you slim down- and keep the pounds off over the long term.  In Chapter 11 in section D, Epstein explains the concept of, "Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion" and one principle stood out to me the most. Begging the question is when someone is arguing that a claim is true making all premises of an argument more believable than the conclusion itself.  Cool could have fallen into the trap of Begging the question because her argument could possibly be valid but to my opinion, it doesn’t directly prove the 5 rules to be wrong.  I took away from our first assignment to fully analyze all claims.  We must also identify the supporting details for proof.  Just because it's on the internet and the article is trying to prove a point, it doesn't mean that we should believe the claim blindly.  Prior to our first paper, I tend to believe a lot of things over the internet.  Now, it's a great feeling not being solicited into something rather justify the claim in more details or facts.

Week 8: Chapter 13, Numbers

Chapter 13 discusses about, "Misleading Claims with Numbers."  Many claims can be very vague when it comes to using numbers as general statistic.  An example that Epstein used in the book was, "Zoe has 4 apples and Dick has 2 oranges.  Who has more?"  More of what is the misleading interpretation.  We can sit there for minutes and ponder, hmm, what is the right answer?  When in reality, Epstein is absolutely correct, we always have to be clear and precise on what claiming or trying to prove.  "When numbers are used it looks exact, but a vague or meaningless comparison gets no better by having a few numbers in it."  What I took from this learning is to be precise with my thoughts by making a strong claim even if I want to add numbers by making my claim more visual.  It has to be a valid claim.  From time to time, I would hear over the news that San Jose is one of the safest cities to reside in.  But now I've realized, it could potentially be a valid claim, but it's also a misleading one.  Because it seems to prove a safe point but comparable to what and where or why?  There's not much relativity or supporting details.

Week 7: Question 3

An interesting section that I came across this week was when I read about Reasoning by Example. According to my past experiences, reasoning by example works the best for me. Reasoning by Example is when a person uses their past experiences to persuade a point in an argument. In the earlier chapters of Epstein, we learned that knowledge or past experience can be a good source in an argument. For myself, I could be a little obsessive with using examples sometimes because it'll always help me prove my point in any disclaimers. Especially when it comes to aruging with my boyfriend. I would use past experiences where he has done something wrong and I've asked him numerous time to change, he agree, and we'll be fine for the moment. But if ever it came up again, I would definitely use reasoning by examples and tell him we've distinguish this problem before and it's time for you to show some action rather than making the same mistakes over and over again. I find reasoning by example very helpful and to the point. After reasoning more of the different types of reasoning, it teaches me to be more articulate being making an argument.

Week 7: Appeal to Emotion

After reading Chapter 10, Appeal to Emotion is when we psychologically believe in something, making us agree with that particular argument based on our emotions.  The Emotion that strikes me most is the Appeal to fear.  I remember when I was in high school, my parents were often time very strict with the things that I was or was not allowed to do.  I recalled one occurrence when I went out to hang out with my friends, we were having a lot of fun but the night was getting late and it was time for me to go home because my curfew is 11pm.  My friends urged me to stay for another hour but I was scared my parents would get upset with me so I decided to go home instead of hanging out with my friends.  In this example, I appealed to fear in making the decision to go home rather than enjoying some time with my friends.  I could have stayed longer but knowing how strict my parents are and fearing that I would get scolded with being grounded, I choose not to stay out for longer with my friends.  For me being grounded meant not being able to hang out with my friends for two weeks.  The fear of the consequences lead me to the decision that I made.

Week 6: Post #3

During my reading, I found "Between One and All with Precise generalities" very useful and informative.  I've learned to use accurate facts when making claims especially through using resourceful statistics instead of being ambiguous.  We should always be careful when using, "one and all" to conclude a claim.  An example that the book used to show an invalid argument was, "72% of ALL students who take critical thinking from Dr.E think he's the best teacher they've ever had.  Harry took Dr. E's critical thinking course last year.  So Harry thinks Dr. E is the best teacher he's ever had."  We can analyze this claim and agree that the premise "could" but the conclusion could also be false.  And of course this assumption ties to not knowing the people involve.  Hence, we should not jump to conclusions and always think about the claims we're making.  To avoid this problem, we should think twice before using the conjunction, "all or one" and only make these claims if we have research or facts to buttress our claim.  After understanding this subject matter more, I've learned not to listen to people's sterotyping because premises could prove a point but the conclusion isn't always necessarily true.

Week 6: Post #2

One of this week's Chapter title is, "Aristotelian Logic" and I found Categorical Claims to be most the interesting and fun to learn.  The Chapter starts off by giving the history of Aristotle's findings over 2300 years ago.  It then goes into his findings, as he found a way to to build his argument in the following forms:  "All S are P.  No S is (are) P.  Some S is (are) P.  Some S is (are) not P."  And he teaches us that an argument is valid as long as we follow closely to the enlisted forms.  

Hence, to solve these forms.  We can understand it better by the given examples in the book.  "All dogs bark. = All dogs are things that bark.  No horse eats meat. = No horse is a thing that eats meat.  Some cats eat birds. = Some cat is a thing that eats birds.  Some dogs don't chase cats. = Some dog is a thing that doesn't chase cats."

Everything makes a lot more sense to me now after going over the examples.  I truly believe Aristotle is a genius and would have never thought that there's a way to determine if an argument is valid or not.  It's amazing how he can break it down and make it seem like a piece of cake.  Sometimes we can argue if "All dogs bark?"  But when it's broken down to, "All dogs are things that bark" it makes it more coherent to understand and gives our audience less room for questioning.

Week 6: Chapter 8 Discussion

In Chapter 8, I found, "General Claims and Their Contradictories" interesting because it's important to identify a valid claim.  These claims typically carry true premises but leads to a inaccurate conclusion.  A good example that the book used was, "Some dogs like cats.  Some cats like dogs.  So some dogs and cats like each other."  This is not a valid argument because it's more of a belief.  Then the book goes into teaching us the difference between "all" and "some."  With all meaning, every single one with no exception.  Some meaning, at least one but not all.

After understanding general claims, it made me realized that I do make general claims and it's a bad habit.  I would say things like, all cats give me allergies or some dogs are scary.  Then the book goes into contradictories of these claims.

Claim:  Some dogs are scary.

Contradictory:  No dogs are scary.

Claim:  All cats give me allergies.

Contradictory:  Some cats don't give me allergies.

Hence, I've learned to use more critical thinking on a daily basis to make valid arguments so people cannot contradict me.  It's gratifying when I'm able to make articulate claim that's reasonable.

Week 4: Post #3

Chapter 6 teaches us an abundance about Conditional Claims and something that stood out to me most was, Reasoning from hypotheses.  Basically it tells us to make the hypotheses guess A and make a good argument for B.  Hence, we can create a good argument for "If A, then B."  We always want to have one main claim while reasoning from the hypotheses and use the, "then B" as additional support to our argument.  I've always enjoyed reasoning from hypotheses because it gives off a sense of validity that we're making an educated guess, therefore B should be a valid argument.

It brings me back to when we were doing science projects in grade school and I was asked to make a hypotheses to something like, "What would happen if you put a plant outside for 5 days with sunlight and water?"  I would answer "My hypotheses consisted of, IF the plant had nourishing components, THEN it will eventually grow.  At age 6 or 7, it definitely doesn't come as common sense but thanks to Reasoning from hypotheses, I was able to make an educated guess A then make a good argument for B.  After all, when the results came in, my hypotheses was right for the predicted conclusion.

Week 4: Chapter 7

Chapter 7 talks about, "Raising Objections" and teaches us that, "it is irrational to say that an argument is good and then deny its conclusion."  It's almost like contradicting yourself, "Raising Objection is a standard way to show that an argument is bad.  They have good reason not to believe the conclusion."  The book tells us three ways in the following:  1.) Show that an unstated premise is dubious.  2.) Illustrates why the argument is weak.  3.)  We are making another argument that either calls into question of one of the premise.

I would say that I'm an attentive person and when I'm able to sense a bad argument, I would raise objection.  Raising Objection teaches us how to validate an argument of whether it's good or bad.  People should be open to both, good and bad arguments and debate nicely to why they think the other person's argument is wrong.  A perfect example occurred between my mom and I last Friday because she kept insisting that it was my cousin's birthday that Saturday morning.  I could have taken her word and planned for the day but I could have sworn I saw the invitation a few days before and I recalled that it will be two weeks from then.  So I went ahead and called my cousin to confirm the date and my mom was wrong!  As I thought, it was not the next morning.  Thank goodness I called to check because I could have missed out on a day of fun going to the beach with my friends early Saturday morning.  I'm glad I was able to clarify her argument and not miss the beach day. =)

Week 4: Chapter 6

Chapter 6 explained Compound Claim as, "One composed of other claims, but which as to be viewed as just one claim."  It typically uses the conjunction, "or" to connect two or more thoughts to make a new claim.  A compound claim can help people prove a claim with the given luxury of additional support without changing the original claim.  It simple terms, a compound claim helps us add extra flavor to the existing claim without having to change the main dish!  It's fun and everyone should try using this claim. =)

Everyday examples would be in the following:

"I'll wake up early tomorrow to make you breakfast or I'll owe you two breakfast meals."

Lol if I cannot commit to keeping my promise, I'll have to double it up.  I have promised to do one or the other.

"I better get good grades or I'll disappoint my parents."

Did I promise to get good grades?  No.  Did I promise to to disappoint my parents?  No.  I promised to do one or the other.

Compound claims can be very helpful to enhance a claim or to prove a point.  For me, compound claims are fun and useful because it gives me the chance to contrast a claim with more than one point.

Week 3: Common Mistakes in Evaluating Premises

Epstein uses Chapter 5 on page 96 to discuss about 5 topics about the Common Mistakes in Evaluating Premises in the following:

1. Arguing Backwards
2. Confusing Possibility with Plausibility
3. Bad Appeals to Authority
4. Mistaking the Person for the Claim
5. Mistaking the Person for the Argument

Mistaking the Person for the Claim stands out to me the most because we do this very often; We tend to make judgement and easily reject a claim because of who said it and we should not do that because it's one of the common mistakes in evaluating premises.  An example I've came across is from my humorous friend Kim, she's jokes about a lot of things and almost about everything.  Its almost hard to take her seriously because she's a goofy person to be around and it's fun for the most part.  She approached me last week and asked me to start hitting the gym with her because she has gained 5 pounds in the past week.  I did not take her seriously at all and disregarded her comment, stating she looks fine and that we should go get dessert instead.  Unexpectedly she got really sad and told me she wasn't joking.  I felt really bad and had to apologize on the spot.  After studying this Chapter, it teaches me to to evaluate premises more carefully and to make sure that I do not make common mistakes especially when it comes to hurting someone's feelings.

Week 3: Advertising on the Internet

Link of Advertisement: 

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://jeiji.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/mcdonalds_finals.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://jeiji.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/defining-the-ambiguous/&usg=__5vXJpNF-tHlkJNY6plG_OrbRSBU=&h=783&w=603&sz=372&hl=en&start=44&zoom=1&tbnid=Llsfa-S2qSF9pM:&tbnh=161&tbnw=124&ei=86sDTsaqINDRiAL1mdGTDg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmcdonalds%2Badvertising%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1017%26bih%3D609%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=404&vpy=237&dur=2015&hovh=256&hovw=197&tx=104&ty=148&page=4&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:44&biw=1017&bih=609

Years ago, Mc Donalds came up with a stellar slogan that got everyone hooked, "i'm lovin' it."  I couldn't stop saying it, every one around me was saying it, as it was also all over television.  To my recollection, I even remember Justin Timberlake signing the slogan and doing an advertisement for Mc Donalds.  Haha, their slogan was an epidemic of the advertising world.  I choose the Angus third pounder advertisement from Mc Donalds because it looks extremely appealing to eat and I love meat! =) 

In Section A of Chapter 5, the book teaches us how to evaluate the premises in three ways for an argument to be good:  "There is good reason to believe the premises.  The premises are more plausible than the conclusion.  And, the argument is valid or strong."  In Section B, it teaches us to accept a claim from personal experiences or other credible sources.

After seeing the advertisement on T.V. just like many others, I excitedly tried their new burger for lunch since I was craving a beef burger.  Sadly, it was not what I expected it to be and thought since they were promoting the third pounder that it might just be worth wild to try.  Remembering the way it looked on the advertisement, I was thinking that it will probably taste close to a decent restaurant burger for the price that Mc Donalds was charging for the burger but I was wrong.  The burger did turned out to be a third pounder but it was so dry and overcooked.  It was so bad, I have never ordered it again since then.

I've concluded that just because the advertisement pressed for a good argument with their appealing picture, the premises are more plausible than the conclusion.  Their slogan allowed them to lure customers in and their pictures made the burger ten times tastier.  From my experience, I would not recommend this burger and go for the $6 burger from Carol's Jr. any day. =)

Week 3: Fallacies

In Chapter 11 in section D, Epstein explains the concept of, "Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion" and how the four principles creates a bad argument.  Begging the question is when someone is arguing that a claim is true making all premises of an argument more believable than the conclusion itself.  Strawman is when you disregard the other person's argument by not understanding it then by putting words into their mouth.  Shifting the burden of proof is not wanting to prove your own claims.  Relevance is when premises are not relevant to the conclusion but dont be tricked because it is not a fallacy.  It's an observation of a weak argument.

My mom occasionally violates the Principle of Rational Discussion by using Strawman and thank goodness it wasn't on me.  I feel bad that my dad is the bullet taker but that's why he loves her.  =)  A month ago for Mother's day, my dad asked me if he should buy my mom her favorite flowers or just to take her out?  I answered, of course you should buy her flowers, she'll love it.  Hence, he prepared a boutique arrangement for her and hide it outside.  The morning of Mother's day, my father went out for a hair cut in the then came back.  He noticed my mom was in the room so he quickly fetched the boutique and brought them in to display it on our dinning table.  My mom walked out with a smirk on her face and said, "WOW, aren't I special?  My husband got me flowers the DAY OF Mother's Day... how thoughtful?!  My dad replied, "I did planning to get you these flowers for you, I did NOT just get it now."  Mom replied, "Sure, that's why you were gone all morning."  I'm sure you guys can see where this conversation is going.  My mom exampled Strawman by disregarding  my dad's argument and exemplify hers by putting words into his mouth.  Too funny.

Week 2: Small Group Text, Leadership

In this week's reading, the Leadership role stood out to me most because it inspires me to be a good leader one day.  According to the Essential Guide to Group Communication book, leadership is define as, "Exercise of interpersonal influence toward the attainment of goals."  Then it is followed by three factors:  the leader has to bring desirable outcomes, enhance credibility with the group, and should be able to inspire and motivate group members to participate.

Although the definition in the book can be a little bit tongue twisting, how I interpreted the definition of leadership is, a leader should be responsible for positively influencing a group towards achieving one common goal.  A leader should be able to coach and guild their group to success by bringing desirable outcomes to the table.  A leader should be the greatest role model and have credibility with the group.  Last but not least, a leader should be able to entice people by motivating and inspiring them to do what they do everyday.

People in all different work fields come to work everyday to fulfill their task/ expectations to gain experience or to make money.  In my opinion, it is crucial to have a great leader to lead by example- One to set the right expectation then to give praise when it's being done correctly.  It will be difficult to work in a field without a leader because then, we will never know what's our progress.

Hence with a leader, we will have a set expectation on how to attain our goal and be content with a desirable outcome.

Week 2: Strong vs. Valid Arguments

In order for an argument to be valid, the premise and conclusion must both be true.  It is not a valid argument if the premises are true but the conclusion is false.


A strong argument can hold true premises but the conclusion can false at the same time.  


An example of a valid argument would be, "It is against the law to drink and drive in the state of California."  We cannot argue this statement to be false because it is a set law.  This statement is a fact, therefore it cannot be proven false.  Another valid argument would be, "Bob is lactose intolerance, therefore if he drinks milk, he will get a stomachache.  The premise is Bob is lactose intolerance leading to the conclusion that he will get a stomachache.


An example of a strong argument would be, "Drinking and driving is unsafe and will cause accidents."  There is a big correlation between being under the influence of alcohol and getting into an accident.  It is a strong argument because it is dangerous to drive under the influence of alcohol but it cannot be proven as a true statement every single time because not everyone who drinks will get into an accident.

Week 2: Subjective and Objective Claims

A Subjective claim is based on one's belief, value, or opinion.  And because the claim can be based on someone's emotion, the claim cannot be proven right or wrong.

An Objective claim is the complete opposite of the subjective claim because this claim contains facts and knowledge that can be proven.  Once the claim is made, the information can true or false.  An objective claim can hold more creditbility because this claim uses actual facts.

An example of a Subjective claim is when I tend to make comments like, "Wow, that person is 5'10 and she's tall!"  I'm a very small and petite girl so I feel as if a lot people are taller than me.  Although, these people are taller than me it doesn't make the statement true as a general idea.  My statement is only based off of my own experience and opinion.  Hence, it holds no facts or validity becuase if someone were to be 6'5, he or she will not think someone being 5'10 is tall.  I think I will continue to make these subjective claims because I'm so petite and everyone seems so much taller than me but now I know that it's only within my own opinion.

An example of an Objective claim is when my manager tells me, "You are scheduled from 9-6 to come into work everyday.  It is the company's policy to abide to these working hours therefore, it is a factual statement that I have to agree to in order to keep my job.  My manager's statement can be proven true or not true because if I had an event of an emergency, I may not be able to come in at exactly 9am even if it is the company's policy.  An Objective claim holds fact and knowledge and can be proven.

Linda's Introductory

Hi Class!

My alias name is Linda and I'm looking forward to meeting everyone.  A little bit about myself:  I love being outdoors.  I cannot stay in my house for longer than a few hours unless it's studying or bedtime.  I enjoy the fresh air of nature and the lovely sunshine when the weather permits.  When it's the summer time, my friends and I enjoy camping and hiking very much.  Then when the winter comes, we also love our cabin and snowboarding trips.  If I'm not working or studying for school, I'm a sucker for finding new eating spots.  I love food too!  Hopefully, we'll have more time to get to know each other. =)

I'm excited to take this course because I can always better my communication skills in the things I do everyday.  My current job is in the customer service field where my employer has a set expectation of how I should deliver good service day in and day out.  Typically things would go well but when it doesn't, we have customers going irate.  My solution now is to escalate the matter in hopes that my manager would be able to solve the issue.  In this course, I hope to learn about the different levels of communicating to people and how to explain things thoroughly with logic and reasoning.  I want to be able to analyze arguments in a situational setting.

I've never taken an online course before, but I love it how everything is very straight forward and to the point of what's expected of me.  I'm still re-reading everything many times so hopefully I would catch on to things quickly. =)