Week 9/10: Chapter 7 Question 1

An inductive argument I used this past week is deciding on what to get at Philz Coffee. I went there for my first time on Monday morning and was deciding what to get. I ended up choosing the Mint Mojito. I looked up Philz Coffee online a while back and most people on Yelp and Facebook always recommend that drink. My sister, who I went with, has also heard from her friend that that is the drink most people order. Therefore, the Mint Mojito is possibly a drink that I would really enjoy. This is an inductive argument in that the two premises were generalizations about what is the most salable drink according to Philz Coffee customers. My conclusion is that I would probably enjoy that drink as well because a lot of people get it. I ended up using the word “possibly” in the conclusion since in inductive reasoning, the “conclusion probably follows from the premises,” as Boss mentions in the book. I never knew that in ordering coffee or something else, we can actually be using inductive reasoning. Oh and that drink really was great! :)

Week 9/3: Question 3

This week the concept I found the most helpful is the section on hypothetical syllogisms. Hypothetical syllogisms are a type of deductive argument that contain an “if…then…” reasoning (conditional statement) as one of two premises. There are three forms of hypothetical syllogisms: (1) modus ponens, (2) modus tollens and (3) chain arguments. 

(1) In the modus ponens pattern, the first premise is a conditional statement. The second premise is a sentence that states the “if” part of the first statement is true. The conclusion follows usually with the word, “therefore.” In this argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true unless the second premise is the “then” statement which may make the argument invalid.

Example:

If it rains, then this street will be flooded.

It rained.

Therefore, the street is flooded.

(2) In the modus tollens pattern, the second premise contradicts the “then” statement in the first premise. The modus tollens is also an effective way to argue because again if the premises are true, no matter what they are, then the conclusion must be true.

                Example:

                                If there is not enough sunlight, then the plant will die.

                                The plant did not die.

                                Therefore, there was enough sunlight.

(3) Chain arguments consist of three “if then” statements, two premises and a conclusion. If a chain argument specifically follows the correct pattern, then it is a valid argument. You can have more than three conditional propositions, but it’s no longer a syllogism although it’s still a deductive argument.

                Example:

                                If the road is blocked, then the cars cannot go through that road.

If the cars cannot go through that road, they are to take another one.

Therefore, if the road is blocked, the cars have to take another road.

Week 9/3: Chapter 8 Question 2

I went to a Catholic school for six years where we were taught that disrespectfulness, discrimination, disobedience, hurting others verbally and physically, and murder are sins. We were taught that vengeance is not the answer to when people hurt or disappoint us. So, Sister Helen Prejean’s statement does imply that the death penalty should not be implemented.

If someone is a Christian, then he or she most likely believes Jesus’ teaching that murder is murder. It does not matter who is doing it or why but it is still a sin that Christians should not commit or an act that they should not agree with. Jesus “taught us to not return hate for hate and evil for evil,” which suggests that killing a criminal as retaliation goes against this teaching. If a partial purpose of the death penalty is justice or peace of mind for the victims, then implementing the death penalty on the slaughterer should relieve the victims of any hate or anger. Things should lead to fairness and relief after killing that murderer. But does it really bring back peace into the minds of those victims? Is it really justice to kill that murderer? If Christian victims lost their loved ones, according to Jesus’ teachings, they should turn to forgiveness and acceptance and not retaliate in a cruel way. 

I am stressing the words Christian and Christianity on this post because, in the end, it depends on your morals, your faith, your opinion. However, in Christianity, it is immoral to kill a person, no matter how or why. Thus, Sister Prejean’s statement quite clearly implies that the death penalty is inhumane and unnecessary and opposes what Jesus taught his followers.

Week 9/3: Chapter 8 Question 1

I think Sherlock Holmes meant that usually when people argue, they rely on their emotions, only their own opinions, or things they hear that are not proven. Instead of using factual information, many let their sentiments take over and then lose the essence of a logical and sound argument. We can apply this idea to almost anything from debates during class, arguing with a friend, elections, etc. 

I admit that I have done it before during my Comm 20 class (public speaking) when I had to persuade people to oppose the death penalty. Of course I used statistics and situations that supported my point but I also persuaded them by swaying them emotionally. I mentioned that it is simply morally wrong to take someone’s life whatever his or her deeds may be. I questioned if people really have the right to do that even though a criminal may have killed many. Being a Catholic, I usually stand by my faith that it is also simply wrong to abort a baby and cease a heartbeat when a parent does not want it.  

However, now I see why some would implement laws supporting abortion or the death penalty. We really have to look at the situation, break it down, and figure out what works best. I’m not implying that we can neither totally support nor totally oppose an issue, but we should fairly consider the pros and cons of each side. The same should happen in an argument: don’t just rely on your emotions, your own beliefs, your own thoughts, or rumors. Instead we should use facts and evidence like scientific information or statistics and make sure that an argument is not based on just opinions and assumptions.

Week 8/27: Question 3

The concept I found the most helpful is the section “Recognizing an Argument” by Boss where she first explains the difference between argument and rhetoric. Rhetoric is used more for persuasion and to convince people of what one is proposing. It can be misused as a way to argue which is not ideal because it can lead to sensitivity to criticism and others’ opinions whereas arguments give rational reasons and as Boss mentions, “you are more likely to move toward truth” (170). Boss goes further in what makes an argument by explaining what a proposition is, a statement expressing something that can neither be true or false. Boss also explains what premises and conclusions are. Premises are reliable facts that support the conclusion which is basically what one is trying to reason out. In this section, Boss further explains what explanations and conditional statements are which may be part of but not the argument itself. Explanation is just what the word is – how or why something happened. Conditional statements are “if/then” statements. Overall, the propositions that constitute an argument are premise(s) and the conclusion.