Concealed Claims

So in Chapter 9 I read about Concealed Claims which is where one uses slanter in order to convince someone of their claim without using any argument whatsoever. Slater is defined by "any literary device that attempts to convince by using words that conceal a dubious claim". There are two types of slanter; loader questions and "making it sound nasty or nice". Now this is very interesting to read because Ive read slanter all the time, especially in news articles, but I could never clearly understand the what exactly was "wrong" with what I was reading. For example in the newspaper I read articles by Tim Kawakami, a journalist, who is always skewing the article to reflect his personal opinion without really giving any credence or argument for that opinion. All the time he asks loaded questions (why aren't you winning? etc...) to sports teams and then proceeds to shift the article towards that loaded questions response, which more often than not results in a negative article.

Internet Advertising

For internet advertising I picked a HDTV Samsung (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E_FmTH5OWY&feature=related). It states that the TV has a crystal finish, it supports HD technology, and is beautiful like a piece of art. Now the beauty of the television is a subjective claim, however the rest is objective as it is a specification of the TV. Now looking at this television I will accept the claim of its beauty from personal experience. I am getting a new HDTV and have looked at many products in the store. By far the Samsung has the best picture of any LCD in the store. I believe it is because of better technology and production put into the television set. Now reading up on this claim I found a website that does nothing but analyze T.V’s and you literally have thousands of owner’s reviewing/analyzing/discussing high definition televisions. The site is AVSforum.com. The overall consensus of the forum is that you go with a Samsung if you want a LCD as their technology outperforms any other television in that class. I believe this forum is a reputable source as there are many experts from high profile television companies their discussing what is the best possible television. People there are not trying to sell you a television they are simply talking about the technologies and specifications that make up a great television. You are not simply getting simple answers like “this is the best”… with no explanation. You are getting in-depth reviews such as contrast ratios, black levels, etc… So by using the criteria listed in the book I would judge that this advertisement is reliable and I accept the claim from this advertisement.

Fallacies

Fallacies are negative parts of an argument that make the argument unsound, un-repairable, and weak. Now there are three types of fallacies; structural fallacies, content fallacies, and fallacies that violate the principle of rational discussion. For this discussion I will focus my real life example on a content fallacy I heard in the past. I often hear people talk about the war in Iraq. I go back and forth with my uncle on why the war is justifiable or not and we disagree. He gets upset and says “I served in the military I know what is justifiable and what isn’t, you or anyone else who didn’t serve does not”. Basically what he is saying is that because he served in the military it makes him an expert on military matters and you have to serve in the military in order to know what is right and what is wrong. This is obviously a content fallacy as his premise (I served in the military I know what is justifiable and what isn’t) is dubious and no other premises will support his conclusion (you or anyone else who didn’t serve does not). More specifically it falls under the category of mistaking the person for the argument. That is anything that group says about _____ is either false or true.

A Good Argument

So in Chapter 3 it is explained that a good argument must have a premise that is plausible, the premise must be more plausible than the conclusion, and the argument must be valid or strong. An example of a good argument I am using is from a court case I watched in court the other day. The defendant is a criminal because she broke the law by impersonating a lawyer. She never went to law school or took her bar exam. She gave false counsel to a family and took their money. She probably will go to jail for theft and false counsel, or at least receive a hefty fine or community service. Now this is a good argument. The premise is plausible given the evidence, the premise is more plausible than the conclusion because there is a possibility for her to walk free, and it is a strong argument given the strong argument definition/explanation I gave in my previous blog.

Strong Vs Valid Arguments

So for a strong argument I am using an example from my dad. Ever since he moved into a new condo he has gotten a bad rash. Other than this new condo, every place he has ever lived at he has not gotten a rash. Therefore he believes that some chemical or fibers in the condo are making him break out in a rash. Now I believe this is a strong argument because the premise is very true because ever since he moved into the condo he has gotten a red rash all over his body, something that he has never gotten before. However the conclusion may be false. There are many possibilities why he has gotten a rash living at this specific area. He may be alergic to the large tree's pollen that is outside of his window that is open all the time. There could be a fungus left over from the previous tenants that he was exposed to. So there are many possibilities why this conclusion may be false, therefore making it an invalid argument.

For a valid argument I am going to use an example from my life. The law school I want to apply to requires one to take the LSAT exam. Every student at this law school has taken the LSAT. Therefore I have to take the LSAT to get into this law school. This is a valid argument because the premise is true and the conclusion is true at the same time. An invalid argument would have a true premise but a false conclusion.

So we see that the main difference between the two is the conclusion. The premise must be true and so does the conclusion in order for it to be a valid argument. On the other hand the premise is true for a strong argument but its conclusion may be false. Also you can reword the same argument to make it either valid or strong.

Discuss Subjective and Objective Claims

Subjective Claim

I recently overheard my sister talk about the city of Sausalito here in the Bay Area and how she wants to move there. She explained to me how it was the most beautiful & best place to live in the Bay Area. Her reasons were that it looked beautiful because it was on an Ocean front, it is quiet and secluded, and the residents would be better neighbors because they can afford to live in such a nice area. Now in my opinion this is a subjective claim because it is all based on her interpretations of "beautiful" and "best". Perhaps another person doesn't like being near the Ocean and therefore they believe it is not a beautiful city or certainly not the "most" beautiful. Another might dislike being secluded away from a major city and its conveniences. Finally we see her reasoning that "richer" neighbors would make better neighbors may not apply towards someone elses view points as they may think richer neighbors are snobby and hard to be around. So as we can see her claim that Sausalito is the most beautiful and best place to live is a subjective claim as whether its true or false is entirely up to that persons personal standards.

Objective Claim

For my objective claim I am going to use my friend as an example. He just purchased a new black Volkswagon. He called me and told me he just bought a black Volkswagon. I went and saw the car right after he got back from the dealer. I recognized it was brand new as it is this years model, it had no mileage, it was black, and it had the dealers tag on the licenses plate. So whether this claim is true or false does not depend on what anyone thinks or believes, it is an impersonal claim. Furthermore I made this conclusion based on the fact that this was a brand new black Volkswagon through carefull observation.

Introduction

Hi I'm Michael Reynolds. I'm a senior at San Jose State who is graduating this summer. This is my first communications class and I am looking forward to it as it is a new subject for me to learn about. I'm looking to get many things out of this class. I have never had a blog before so it is interesting for me to share myself and experiences with other people. I am very much looking forward to viewing other peoples blogs and learning about my fellow students at SJSU. I also am looking forward to increasing my communication skills with this class as I am sure it will teach me a lot about interacting with (online) groups of people. Also I believe this will help with my English skills at it is all online work and a lot of writing is involved. I have taken a few online class's, some were better than others, but overall I prefer taking an online course as I can learn while also having some free time to myself. A few things about myself are that I love sports. I follow football, basketball, and hockey religiously. My favorite teams are the Raiders, Lakers, and Sharks. One thing I am looking forward to getting this Summer is a giant plasma t.v so I can really enjoy the theater esq. atmosphere while watching my favorite teams this fall. After college I am planning to enroll in law school. This Wednesday I am starting work at a law firm so I can get a first hand experiences on what it takes to be a lawyer and how a firm operates. So I hope you enjoyed reading a little about myself and I look forward to blogging more this Summer.

-Mike