Post 3

Chapter eight was all about general claims. But what are general claims? It was hard figuring out what exactly they were from the reading. This whole chapter was confusing for me from what the definition of to how general claims are disputed. It seems to me that all claims can be general, so why devote a whole chapter to general claims? I was wondering what the chapter means with all the formulas of if P, then Q or something like this. I mean this is not math class, where we need to know formulas. I never knew there was so much in depth analysis of speech. This chapter has really opened up the idea that speech can be so fully disected. I am just a little confused on the effectiveness of this chapter (and maybe this book). What is the importance of being able to disect general claims. I am already aware of bad speeches, just listen to our politicans.

Post 2

The first assignment was useful for many reasons. The first reason is that knowing what an editorial is can be useful for knowing opinion journalism vs. fact based journalism. A growing trend is in the media is opinion journalism. Different personalities on Fox News and MSNBC tell news using their opinion and sometimes do not use actual facts in their journalism. Recognizing opinion vs. facts can help people see clearly whether the news he or she receives is news or opinion. Then, being able to break down an editorial even further is very useful as well. Some people (including myself) like reading editorials because it can open your mind to other opinions, and if the opinion is good enough, can even change my mind about a subject. Also, it seemed that the first assignment helped us see what a good editorial should encompass, a description, and a valid argument. An editorialist job in writing the article is to try to get the reader to see his/her point of view. I recognize what an editorial is, but some people cannot, and that is sad.

Chapter 8

All general claims can be contradicted in some way. If I claim that college is a waste of money, someone can obviously come in and contradict this claim by saying college is not a waste of money, but in fact is a great investment. General claims can of course be contradicted because they are so general. General claims can involve the use of some and all. Some meaning everyone except one, and all means there is no exception. Some people, instead of using all, say every. I like to use all more often, because every always conjures up more arguments than necessary. More common of the two is definitely “every”. I use every more often because it is more common vernacular. Using every does create problems sometimes because people, when they hear every, always want to pick apart the claim and try to find that one exception to the rule. I guess it kind of goes back to the use of the word every. We use every in exaggeration of things that should not be used for every.

Post 3

In chapter 7, the beginnings dealt with raising objections. Raising objections is so important to how and why we learn what we do. By raising objections to statements of opinion, people begin to question the status quo. Someone may make a claim that sounds good at the time, such as women should not be able to vote because they are not as smart as men. Can you imagine if no person would have raised an objection to this common belief or opinion?  Raising objections is how we learned what we learned in school. People in high places argued over the curriculum of the school, but through time, objections have been raised over the content of the education. People raised objections to the portrayal of blacks in history or popular beliefs in science.  What is also so great about raising objections is an action usually is done for the progress of society.  Raising objections to homelessness and poverty is why charity is helping homeless people.

Post 2 2011.03.09

Chapter 7 deals with counterarguments. A counterargument is important in any dialogue/argument. Lawyers use counterarguments all the time in court, but we use counterarguments too. Sometimes if someone is deciding to do A or B, he or she will argue and counter argue in their head about the best possible outcome.  When we argue with someone other than ourselves, we can refute an argument directly or indirectly. There are three ways to refute an argument directly. From the list in the book, the best way I see to refute an argument is to show that the conclusion is false. A good debate requires that the people make good points and good premises, but the conclusion is where they differ. Republicans and Democrats argue over the role of government. Both sides make good points, but Republicans conclude that government is bad because of its many failings. Democrats would not argue that government has not failed, but to then jump to the conclusion government is bad is where the argument occurs.

Post 1 2011.03.08

Chapter 6 was all about compound claims. A compound claim is a claim that has more than one claim, but should be viewed as only one claim. The book used a good exam for a compound claim. I feel that we use a lot of compound claims in our rhetoric. Compound claims seem to always use and/ or statement. But this however does not make the statement a guarantee for one happening over the other. The book also mentions that not every sentence with two claims is a compound claim. The distinction can be hard to notice unless some sort of knowledge of communication. Compound claims can make a person sound smarter. Many politicians use compound claims all the time in their arguments. A politician always makes statements that put every situation in black and white terms. The United States needs to repay its debt or it will face bankruptcy. Politicians use compound claims to make their points, saying if someone does not follow my point, a disaster will take place.

Post 3 2011.03.04

This chapter dealt with advertisements and rationale discussion. Society highly values products, especially ones that make our life easier. It also talked about repairing arguments. What does that really even mean? I want to talk about how advertisers are great at what they do because we fall for their tricks. Advertisers play on people who cannot comprehend the idea that his or her life will be fine without such a product. Advertisements are everywhere. We have just become so use to advertisements; we do not really notice them all around. The way the book says to question advertisers is to use personal experience. Advertisers do a good job of trying to convince the buyer that this product is genuine and works. They sometimes use "doctors" or experts in the field to persuade someone to buy the product. The point I am trying to convey is that just because advertisers use a good narrative in trying to convince someone to buy the products, it may or may not be of use.

Advertisements 2011.03.02

Advertisements are all around us. They used to only be on television and in magazines, but with the escalation of the internet, advertisers began using this median. It was hard to find a specific advertisement on the web, but when I use the search engine, yahoo, there are advertisements on the side. Specifically an advertisement on the web, I found was on http://www.menshealth.com/. I use this website a lot for advice and different work outs, but many times when someone enters the URL, an advertisement pops up wanting the user to subscribe to the magazine.
The reason we tolerate pop ups and advertisers is because we are so used to them, we have gotten use to them. We have become tolerant to advertisers need to try to sell their products. Advertisers know we cannot help it. We are drawn to certain advertisements, such as my men’s health because I believe in what they are trying to sell to me.

Post #1 2011.03.01

Repairing an argument requires adding a premise or conclusion if it satisfies all three of the following:
1. The argument becomes stronger or valid
2. The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.
3. The premise is more plausible than the conclusion.

Argument: Charlie Sheen is crazy because of the interviews he has given lately.

Analysis: The argument could become stronger if there were specifics as to why the interviews would lead someone to believe he was crazy. Adding detail to the argument would cause people to see why he is crazy. Another question arises, is this even an argument? People who have seen Charlie Sheen lately would say Sheen is crazy because of his recent television interviews. The unstated premise is that all people who act like Charlie Sheen would most likely be labeled as crazy. Not many people would argue with someone on that statement.