Graphs

Graphs are statistician’s tools of deception.  They can manipulate the looks of the graph in order to alter the viewer’s perspective of the information given.  There are different types of graphs including bar graphs, line graphs, pie charts, scatter plots and many more.  The different types of graphs are used for different types of information.  For example, information about the progress of a company over time would be shown on a time line while information about percentage of a whole would be shown in a pie chart.  Probably the most common of all graphs are bar graphs.  Bar graphs are the easiest to manipulate for companies.  The company can alter the y-axis to change the heights of the bars within the graph.  This is important for a company if they have to show the significance or insignificance of a change the company has made.  These techniques are also used when pitches are given to a board of executives to make whatever idea they’re pitching seem better.

And boom goes the dynamite,

-Melvin Banner

The First Course Assignments

The first course assignment deals with critical thinking in news and politics.  I specifically appreciated this assignment because it forced me to do some research on some different current events.  For somebody who doesn't pay any attention at all to the news or other world topics, reading up on current events was a good change.  I didn't even know some of the things were going on that I did research on.  For example, we did our research paper on the drug cartel in Mexico.  To be honest, I didn't even know that there was a dangerous drug cartel in Mexico, let alone that there was talk about the effect the legalization of marijuana would have on it. After this assignment I became less naive about what was going on in the world. Another benefit of have group assignments in an online class is the involvement with the other students.  Normally, in on online class, the student would never even meet each other.  It is always good to work on our cooperation skills with others.

And boom goes the dynamite,

Melvin Banner

Averages

Chapter 13 in our text talks about numbers.  Section 'C' specifically talks about averages.  The three different averages it talks about are mean, median, and mode.  The mean is found by adding up all the numbers and then dividing the sum by the amount of numbers that were added up.  The median is found by locating the middle number in a set of data.  With the median, 50% of the numbers are higher than it and 50% of the numbers are lower than it.  The mode is the number that occurs the most often in a set of data.  

We see these different types of averages in our every day life more often than we realize.  Mean, being the most commonly used type of average, is what most people think of when they hear the word "average."  For example, a baseball players batting average is found by using the mean.  The median is a better use of an average for a set of data with large outliers.  An example would be .  The mode is most likely used in a categorical set of data. For example, when a mother is trying to find out what to make for dessert, she will ask all her children and the most occuring answer will be what she makes.  

And boom goes the dynamite,

Melvin Banner

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is a great way to develop a conclusion if you already have previous evidence.  In deductive reasoning, the argument consists of two premises and a conclusion.  If the premises are true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false, and visa-versa.  An example would be: 

Premise 1: Sam was killed with a blunt object.

Premise 2: Ten feet from his body was a bloody baseball bat.

Conclusion: Sam was killed with the baseball bat.

Detectives use deductive reasoning all the time as well as almost everybody, we just don’t realize it most of the time.  Detectives use the information they have been given (premise one and two) in order to logically come up with a valid conclusion.  Then after further testing, their argument or hypothesis is tested in the lab.  For example, there is still a small chance that the blood on the baseball bat isn’t Sam’s, but we find that to be very unlikely.  Let’s say it was Sam’s blood though, and we also found Dan’s fingerprints on the handle of the bat.  We can use deductive reasoning again:

Premise 1: The fingerprints on the bat are those of the murderer.

Premise 2: Dan’s fingerprints are on the baseball bat.

Conclusion: Dan brutally murdered Sam with the baseball bat.

And boom goes the dynamite,

Melvin Banner

Appeal to Patriotism

http://youtu.be/Ezk0e1VL80o

For a recent Superbowl, Dodge made a commercial for their Charger that was a clear appeal to Patriotism.  The commercial starts out with a small army of Red Coats from the revolutionary war in battle formation.  Then over the horizon, George Washington is seen driving an all black Charger with an American flag sticking out the window.  As George Washington (plus two more Chargers) and his army close behind race towards the Red Coats, they become afraid, break ranks, and scatter towards the forest.  The commercial ends with the image of George Washington victoriously standing next to the threee Chargers and the American flag.  Then a deep voice says, "Here's a couple of things America got right; cars and freedom."  This commercial is the definition of the appeal to patriotism.  By associating the idea of freedom and the Charger, Dodge is hoping that the commercial will create a mutual positive feeling for the car and freedom since most everybody would already agree that freedom is a good thing.  Although it is a fallacy to appeal to emotions and it might not be a good argument to say that America makes good cars because we won our freedom, some people can't help but to like the Charger more after seeing this commercial.  This commercial will work on American's who have a lot of pride for their country.

And boom goes the dynamite,
Melvin Banner

Appeal to Emotion

Although using emotions as a way to appeal to your audience is a very persuasive way to get them to believe your argument, it is a major fallacy. People use other's emotions in place of sufficient reasoning for their argument.  The person knows that if they can get the audience to feel good about their claim, then they don't need to provide strong or valid reasoning.  A specific type of appeal to emotion is the appeal to pity. This is when somebody uses pity to convince another person to believe their claim. This is seen a lot when people try to get out tickets.  A cop will pull somebody over for speeding, and they will usually make an excuse that appeals to the cops pity.  An example would be, "Oh, I'm sorry officer. I didn't notice how fast I was going because i have a lot on my mind. You see, I just caught my girlfriend cheating on me... with my father."  Something like that would be considered an appeal to emotion because the driver is attempting to get the officer to feel pity for him hoping that he could get out of the ticket.

And boom goes the dynamite,
Melvin Banner

Symbols and Truth Tables

This section in the book talks about compound claims and how ttuthful or false they are.  The book uses four words/phrases to analyze the different compund claims and they are; and, or, not, if...then....  The book then continues to elaborate on each word/phrase:

And: A conjunction is true when both parts are true. Otherwise it is false.

Or: A negotion is true if its part false; it is false if its part is true.

Not: A disjuction is false if both parts are false. Otherwise it is true.

If...then...: A conditional is false if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. Otherwise it is true.

                          ---We can use these four concepts everyday in our lives---

An example of a conjuction would be, 'Baxter is a cat and Baxter doesn't like dogs.' This claim would only be true if both parts were true.

An example of a negotion would be, 'The sun has not set.' It is very obvious that if the sun is set, then this claim would be false but if the sun has not set, then the claim is true.

An example of a disjuction would be, 'You are smart or you are stupid.'  Disjunctions claims are true when only one part of the claim is true and the other is false.  Since it is impossible to be stupid and smart, the 'or' claim is true.

An example of a conditional would be, 'If you study hard, then you will have a better chance to pass this class.'  Since we know that study definitaly increases somebodies test scores, this claim is true since both the antecedent and the consequence are true.

And boom goes the dynamite,
Melvin Banner

Between one and all

Chapter 8 in our text is titled "General Claims."  Section C talks about precise and vague generalities and I found the vague generalities to be very applicable to my own life.  These are when we use words like "almost all," "very few," "some," "many," or "all."  Vague generalities might not be valid but we can use them in a strong argument.  The book uses an example about dogs barking.

"Very few dogs don't bark.
Spot is a dog.
So Spot barks."

As we can see, not all dogs bark but since a majority of them do, we can assume Spot barks since he is indeed a dog.

When I was reading this section, I immediately thought about stereotypes.  For example:

Most Asians are bad drivers.
Jim is an Asian.
So Jim is a bad driver.

Although this might indeed be a vague generality, it still isn't a strong argument because the first statement isn't necessarily true.  You must be careful when dealing with these vague generalities because unless it's a fact, people tend to over-exaggerate things.

And boom goes the dynamite,
Melvin Banner

Compund Claims

Chapter six in the Epstein text discusses compound claims.  The text defines that a compound claim is one composed of other claims, but which has to be viewed as just one claim.  Last night while I was out with my friends, my ear caught one of my friends making a compound claim.  Two of my friends were playing a drinking game and since Dan lost he had to chug the rest of his large cup.  He was trying to avoid it because he knew that it wouldn't be good.  Then Dan told Nick, who won, that he was either going to chug the rest of his drink, or buy him a six-pack.  By saying that, Dan wasn't promising that he was going to chug the beer, and he also wasn't promising that he was going to buy Nick a six-pack.  What Dan did say however, was that he was going to do one or the other.  This is a compound claim because two claims are put together to create one claim.

And boom goes the dynamite,
Melvin Banner

Refuting Directly

Chapter seven of our text is entitled, "Counter-Arguments" and as one would guess... it discusses counter-arguments.  The concept that made the most sense to me was about refuting an argument directly.  I've always tended to tackle things head on in my life and attacking somebody else's argument falls into that category.  Our text says that there are three main ways to directly refute an argument which are: Show that at least one of the premises is dubious, show that the argument isn't valid or strong, or show that the conclusion is false.  The book uses an example about how killing flies is useless because the fast ones will survive and then evolution will take over creating super fast flies.  It was a funny example but it really helped me to apply the concept to my own life.  Just this morning during a workout, my friend told me that if I don't drink protein shakes then it will be impossible for me to get bigger and stronger.

Clearly this claim was weak.  Immediately many counter arguments rushed through my mind so I started fireing them out.  I said things like "That's BS, I can get bigger and stronger by simply working harder." "A full diet can supply me the same amount of protein as one of those shakes, and on top of that, it would be natural."  "Spartans and other ancient warriors didn't use any suppliments and they were finely-tuned killing machines."

Yes, drinking the suppliments would help to increase my results, but it is not the only other way to succeed.  By giving my friend alternative ways to get bigger and stronger, I proved that his argument wasn't very strong.  I was able to use the real life example of the Spartan warriors as proof that using suppliments aren't the ONLY way to get bigger and stronger, also showing that his argument wasn't valid.

And boom goes the dynamite,
Melvin Banner