Discussion Question Number One: Part Five

Compound Claims
In Chapter six of the textbook, the topic of a compound claim is, as explained by Epstein, "one composed of other claims, but which has to be viewed as just one claim". (113) So it simply has to deal with two propositions, one way or another, but still considered has one claim with the "or" serving as the connection of the argument or claim; it is one claim, but made of two claims within it. There are different kinds of compound claims that are learned in this chapter, for instance, false dilemmas. Alternatives are the claims where a connection by an "or" claim are involved; there are the parts of it. (114) "Or" claims have the possibility and aid in determining whether or not an argument is valid or weak by looking at the way the "or" claim plays a role in the sentence itself.

False Dilemmas
In the textbook, it also mentions false dilemmas. It deals with persuading the other person by giving them a reasonable conclusion for the problem, juxtaposed to another possibly option and/or conclusion that's extremely outrageous, silly, and seemingly implausible. The bad claims can come from not listing all the possibilities that are left out from the  "or" claim, even if leaving out possibilities can be considered a way of making a valid argument. The claims attached to the "or" are called alternatives. To be precise, a false dilemma is "a bad use of excluding possibilities where the "or" claim is false or implausible. Sometimes just the dubious "or" claim itself is called a "false dilemma"". (118) So in order to avoid dilemmas like this, we have to realize and think about possibilities that can occur when someone else hears or reads the claim.

Conditionals and their Contradictories
The conditionals and their contradictories deal with the "if and then" ideal. The claim isn't a guaranteed outcome of the proposed "then", but rather becomes a conditional claim because it has to do with doing your part of the deal, so to speak. In other words, there is a Part A and Part B to the idea, in that if you are successful in completing and succeeding in Part A, there is a better likeliness and guarantee that, based off on what claim tells you, will be yours. However, if you do poorly, then there is no reason for the person proposing this claim to give you anything as said before in Part B. Sometimes, the claim can be told in a reversed order or can leave out the words "if" or "then", but still be very clear in explaining the "if and then" claim without using the actual words. The definition of a conditional is essentially this, and the fact that it can re-told in the sense of "if A, then B" (121)--A becoming its antecedent, and B the consequent. The contradictory is similar, but is told as "If A, then B, has contradictory A but not B." (121) "But that does not mean the contradictory of a conditional is not another conditional," (122) like using the words "even if". An example is given to say that I need to get to post office, so I need to leave by two, but a friend of mine comes over and exclaims that I can just put it in the drop box outside of our building instead. So there's a definite A then B, but then there becomes another B, so to speak.