Part 3

What i found interesting was that media has a lot to do with how people act. From commercials to advertisements, people are always gullible for everything they see. Shopoholics especially are gullible because once they see something on television that they love but do not really need, they go to their freezer, take the block of ice out with the credit card inside, and they would start hammering it away and trying to call in the purchase before the time runs out. I find that advertisements are also deceiving because they would always tell people that they need this because it was become a great benefit towards them, when literally, people will probably throw their new appliances and never see them again. I also found surprising that media is just like the devil, they promote products that people will love to have but they do not really need it, because one they shop they never stop. I also think that people in this business is wrong for taking people's money away for creating useless junk, because at the end, the business marketers are the ones making the cash.

URL connection with the interesting blog

http://www.extenzeforlife.com/?microppcsite=google&microppcterm=Extenze&gclid=CP24w8mxrqQCFQpOgwodHzqE0w

Part 2

I found that Section C in Chapter 5 was pretty interesting because i found out from Epstein that most advertisements are arguments. Truthfully, i never knew that. According to Epstein, he says "Many advertisements are arguments, with the conclusion that you should buy the product, or frequent the establishment, or use the service." When most of the people see advertisements on billboards or the internet, we usually gaze upon the characters within the poster and then the product they are trying to promote, then we would gaze in awww. For example, the advertisement extenze, which is a male enhancement commercial/advertisement that argues all men should take this pill so that they can perform better sexually and that the pill contains many benefits. All advertisements have a downside because for some people it wont work and in that case, the argument is not valid. It only seems valid when actors and actresses are promoting the advertisement, that way anyone will buy the pill and will think it will work, but literally, it might not.

Repairing Arguments

Part 1
In Chapter 4, Epstein talks about how to correct an argument or what you can do to the argument to make it sound much better. According to Epstein, we are to add premises or conclusions so that it'll satisfy the three criteria's. 1) the argument will become much stronger and valid 2) the premise is plausible and would seem plausible to another person and 3) the premise is more plausible than the conclusion. One of the claims i came up would be too much candy will give you a bad stomach ache. The conclusion and premise would be that candy will give you a stomach ache if you eat too much and to what extend of candy makes you have a stomach ache. Someone can be like if i ate one piece of candy, will my stomach hurt? the premise is there so it can explain why too much of candy will make you sick. so in an argument, it needs both a conclusion and premise to satisfy the three criterias.

Summary of Bad Arguments

In this week's reading, i find that the summary of bad arguments to be use and not useful at the same time. It is useful in that they are great exercises for people who are practicing how to pinpoint what statement is which and to tell what the premises and claims are. I also found that most of the arguments are not useful because they do not support enough evidence to make it arguable. For example, the one about the person being late for school, there is not really a argument because the person does not have an excuse to be late. If the person woke up earlier and left the house earlier, not only will he or she be at school on time but they can also grab breakfast so they do not starve throughout the day. But overall, i believe that it is a great exercise for people who are starting to learn how to point out statements.

Structure of Arguments

I picked "I'm on my way to school. I left five minutes late. Traffic is heavy. Therefore, I'll be late for class. So I might as well stop and get breakfast." Yes, this is an argument because the person is saying if they are late, they might as well get something that will satisfy their hunger and not starve throughout the day. The conclusion is the last sentence because the first four sentences seems like it is a fact. According to Epstein, a premise is reasons for believing the conclusion is true. So if this person is late for class, it is because he or she is running five minutes late and the traffic is being heavy. I don't think this is a good argument because it is the person's fault for waking up late and running late to school. The person should have put their alarm five to ten minutes earlier than they would normally wake up, avoid the traffic so that way, they would not be late for class and they would not have to explain to their teacher what happened. If the teacher did ask and the student said the sentences above, he was get punished for being late to class since it was the students fault. I think that this is a great exercises because this help us point out what the argument is and what the claims, premises, and other statements are.

Violating The Principle of Rational Discussion

The argument that i like the most is "strawman" because not only are you addressing the person's argument but you can add something in it to relate it to an argument you want to address. In Epstein's word, he states that "strawman" is saying "it's easier to knock down someone's argument if you misrepresent it, putting words in the other person's mouth". In other words, i can get something out of an argument that a friend of mine is addressing. For example, My brother recently wanted an Apple Laptop and the cost of it was out of question to my mom because there was no way that she will spend nearly a thousand dollars on a laptop. But as i was reading through the Best Buy catalog, i saw that they were having a promotion where if you buy a Apple laptop, not only will you get that, but you will also receive a free Ipod Touch. It was basically a win-win situation. So my brother got what he wanted but instead of him arguing about it with my mom, i negotiated with her so that it would be cheaper. In reality, i misrepresented his argument with an argument that my mom would not refuse to, since she loves free stuff.

Descriptive and Prescriptive Claims

Epstein states that a descriptive claim is a claim that says what it is while prescriptive is a claim that says what it should be. For example, prescriptive claim: Sally should not drive drunk. descriptive claim: People driving drunk will lead to DUI's. This is valued judgment because the law states that there are some things that we should not be doing but in other cases, people don't listen, and they either get put in jail for it, or they end in a  tragic car accident. I think its best if people use descriptive writing because not only is it short and concise, but also it can help people stop going on and on about one sentence. If it is short and concise, people will understand your reading more and they will probably like it because it is easy to understand.

Strong versus Valid Arguments

According to Epstein, A valid argument is when there is no possible way for its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. A strong argument is when the premises is true but the conclusion to be false but thats unlikely. An example of a valid argument would be all asian people i know have a history of knowing martial arts, so since im asian, i know martial arts. A strong argument would be if i told the DC employees that i was lactose and they say i can still have the ice cream because it non-dairy. Its strong because the person i asked works at the DC and they make the syrup. This argument can be true and false but mostly true because i havent gotten any issues yet, so im good.  

The Tests for an Argument to Be Good

According to Epstein, there are 3 things to make an argument good: 1)The premises are plausible, meaning that people would have a good reason for believing something is true. 2) The premises are more plausible than the conclusion, this means that the conclusion can be false due to other people's beliefs. 3) The argument is valid and strong. An example i can give is I knew i was lactose when i had a bad reaction to dairy products. This argument is not valid because it might not be the dairy product, it might be what people used to sterilize the milk or cheese before they sell it that is making me sick. this can also be a good argument when having dinner with friends and they order a large portion on fettuccine alfredo, i can say that i cant eat it because im lactose, and they have to believe it believe i'm the one saying it and i know my body.

Epstein

After reading "Thank you for arguing" by Epstein, He reminds me of a high school teacher my brother had because he would always win in arguments. The way Epstein writes the book, he seems like he never argues with his family because he knows what to say to avoid an argument. It also surprises me because it actually works; when there were no more toothpaste and he somehow got his son to get a new tube without them arguing, if i was in the son's shoes, i would not have gotten the paste. But due to his Epstein's knowledge of arguments, he made it so that he and his son would not have to argue about going to the basement and getting a new tube of toothpaste.