How to Check For Validity With Diagrams.

In Chapter 8, section B we learned how to check for validity with diagrams. I find this to be very fun and interesting to do with the examples and exercises. Some of the rules are as followed:

A collection is represented by a circle. If one circle is enveloped by another circle that means everything in that smaller circle is applied to the bigger circle. This is the crucial part. The attributes of the small circle applies to the bigger circle, it does not mean the attributes of the bigger circle applies to the smaller circle. If a circle is not bound by any circle then it is not related to anything at all. Using the same example I used in Section A.

“Only postal employees deliver U.S. mail.
Ralph is a postal employee.
So Ralph delivers U.S. mail.”

First apply the rule of Only: “Only A are B” means “All B are A.” This means deliver U.S. mail would be the smaller circle, and postal employees would be the bigger circle around it. Ralph would be another circle inside of postal employees but it doesn’t have any relation to deliver U.S. mail which means the conclusion “So Ralph delivers U.S. mail,” is not valid.

General Claims in Chapter 8

In Chapter 8, section A we learned how to reason using general claims about something in general way so that it applies to all or part of its claims. In further detail, we learned of how to make the claim in more than one way. The author used an example that I find was really helpful in making it clear to understand:

“Only postal employees deliver U.S. mail.

Ralph is a postal employee.

So Ralph delivers U.S. mail.”

The general definition of Only is “Only A are B” means “All B are A.” not all A are B. By glancing at the referred claim, one would assume that it sounds valid but this is actually not a valid claim. This is stating that only postal employees deliver U.S. mail but that does not mean all postal employees deliver U.S. mail so Ralph may not deliver mail therefore making this claim not valid.

Usefulness of Course Assignment

In the 2^nd course assignment, we get to use the ideas we have learned so far and apply it in our research in the organization we chose. We get to search for the information that others wrote that is related to our organization activities. We were to use the stuffs we have learned so far from the course to analyze and synthesize our finding in an organized research paper to present if the findings we found have strong or weak arguments. This is helpful in developing our skills in researching any topics for future reference. This is also helpful in helping us to analyze any reference we find on our topic more critically and where or not to accept, refuse, or suspend our judgments depending on how the reference was written. Aside from that, we also get to work on our collaboration skill and networking skill in getting the paper together to flow cohesively.

Bad Ways to Counterarguments

Another extension in chapter 7 about counterarguments and what one should not mistake in attempts to refute that are bad arguments. One should not try to counter an argument with phony refutation, which means you should counter the argument based on what the argument and premises said not what was said or done in the past by the person making the argument. Another mistake one should not try in counterargument is ridicule, refuting a person’s argument with ridicule is unprofessional. It shows that one is not being objective and petty. Finally, the worst of the bad ways to refute is to attack an argument the other person didn’t say. This is called a strawman tactic, it means one is refuting by putting words in someone’s mouth. This has shown up a lot in political discourse where instead of having anything relevant to debate and staying on course objectively with the topic being debated, one party would try this tactic to make the other party look bad. Irritably enough, it works because not everyone see this as bad argument.