Appeal to Spite
Appeal to Spite may inadvertently appear under certain circumstances, as for example, Epstein creates an instance where two friends are helping a third friend out with something. One of the friend's helping out discusses and questions the other friend's willingness to help, reminding him of the time where the third friend who is being helped with now refused to help fix his fence the week prior. The appeal is describes as the "hope of revenge" (193). It can be viewed or considered slightly immoral, in a sense, because of its initial placement of bringing up the event in the first place out of thin air. The argument in itself is most of the time a questionable claim and absurd in a logical sense.
Another example was the occurrence of a school election. A student liked the candidate's presentation most, and therefore decided to vote for that person. A friends hears this devision, and reminds the person of how the candidate did not support him by voting for him in another occurrence, and because of that, shouldn't vote for the initially chosen candidate. The person is convinced by something that shouldn't be taken onto account. The time and remembrance of that betrayal made the person forward that enraged feeling be affect his decision (with some sort of revenge) and that becomes Appeal to Spite.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Discussion Question Number Two: Part Seven
Appeal to Vanity
An advertising that uses "apple polishing":
Old Spice uses advertisements like these that are very fetching and straightforward about their clientele. They use language that's very informal and funny, which sends a comforting, trusting tone for those watching or looking at their products. The absence of forcing the idea with over-dramatic ideals and expectations isn't portrayed in their product. Although there are implausibilities and logical fallacies presented in advertisements of their products, it is the relaxing intention that lures in viewers. It is presented in a different matter that is meant mostly as a parody, which holds well in capturing the audience's attention. The vanity presented is the overwhelming confidence in ads, like these, where the producer is blatantly telling the consumer that their product is the only way to go if you want to this attractive and all powerful status of a human being to ever come possible in happening.
It does well and slightly bad of being a good advertisement. It is good that it is simple and straight to the point, however bad that it doesn't even show or mention what their product is even about. However, that can be to their advantage, as they don't seem to need to. The tone of the advertisement, although seemingly arrogant, is a type of voice that can also be seen as an admirable trait to many. And because the result of the product is exactly that, it leads to the idea of Appeal to Vanity, in that its essential priority is to make the person feel better about themselves; to become a all-around better person.
An advertising that uses "apple polishing":
It does well and slightly bad of being a good advertisement. It is good that it is simple and straight to the point, however bad that it doesn't even show or mention what their product is even about. However, that can be to their advantage, as they don't seem to need to. The tone of the advertisement, although seemingly arrogant, is a type of voice that can also be seen as an admirable trait to many. And because the result of the product is exactly that, it leads to the idea of Appeal to Vanity, in that its essential priority is to make the person feel better about themselves; to become a all-around better person.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Discussion Question Number One: Part Seven
Appeal To Emotion
Definition: "A premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way." (191)
There are four kinds of Appeals to Emotion mentioned in the text. The text uses the example of television commercials that show may, for instance, sad images pertaining to the conclusion that they want, which is to donate money to their cause. The ultimate idea left in your head leaves a feeling of "you're a bad person if you don't donate". These kids or animals, which ever the focus may be, will affect you emotionally because we sit there watching this commercial doing nothing about the problem, counting the seconds until it goes away, leaving the audience only to feel worse for trying to ignore it. This technique that is readily used in advertising everywhere holds for intense and emotional results that catches the attention to the focus, even if we, as the audience, attempt to ignore it. This case would most likely deal with Appeal to Pity or Appeal to Fear. The audience feels bad for sitting there, not helping out. Or, the fear of the possibility of a negative outcome for those that are shown in the commercial or which ever the organization may put forth in whatever form. Although it is successful in influencing the emotion, it logically may not be the best argument.
Definition: "A premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way." (191)
There are four kinds of Appeals to Emotion mentioned in the text. The text uses the example of television commercials that show may, for instance, sad images pertaining to the conclusion that they want, which is to donate money to their cause. The ultimate idea left in your head leaves a feeling of "you're a bad person if you don't donate". These kids or animals, which ever the focus may be, will affect you emotionally because we sit there watching this commercial doing nothing about the problem, counting the seconds until it goes away, leaving the audience only to feel worse for trying to ignore it. This technique that is readily used in advertising everywhere holds for intense and emotional results that catches the attention to the focus, even if we, as the audience, attempt to ignore it. This case would most likely deal with Appeal to Pity or Appeal to Fear. The audience feels bad for sitting there, not helping out. Or, the fear of the possibility of a negative outcome for those that are shown in the commercial or which ever the organization may put forth in whatever form. Although it is successful in influencing the emotion, it logically may not be the best argument.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Discussion Question Number Three: Part Six
Checking for Validity with Diagrams
Chapter eight of Epstein introduces a great concept concerning the discovery of an argument's validity. The textbook provides many points in proving or disproving the validity. Page 164 of the Epstein illustrates the concept bullet by bullet, ultimately conveying six important points in understanding and creating this diagram. (1) The first defines the representation of a particular area that is enclosed, called a collection. (2) The second clarifies the idea that if one area is inside another area completely, then all that is inside that one area will also be in the other. (3) The third describes if a part of an area goes over inside another, then there will be a shared portion, meaning there's a commonality, among the two. (4) The fourth is the exclamation that if two areas do not happen to go over one another, then there will be no connection of either one to the other. (5) The fifth establishes a point in an area, shown as an "a" or dot, that demonstrates that a certain object belongs in that collection. (6) The sixth lastly explains the ability of being able to draw places or areas in that "represent the premises as true while trying to represent the conclusion as false," (164) and what it means if it is successful (the argument is invalid) and vice versa (the argument is valid).
Discussion Question Number Two: Part Six
Usefulness of Course Assignments
Both of the assignments from this course so far have been tremendously helpful in improving a person's skills in analyzing and identifying certain arguments and concepts particularly learned from Epstein and the other Group Communications handbook. I really enjoyed doing the second assignment, seeing what the other group members had to say about the chosen organization, and what they were able to find from their online website. It's always great being able to become aware of organizations that take time out of their day to help endless people from a variety of unfortunate situations, whether it is by providing meals, clothing, or comfort, they all do something to help plenty of people feel better. Aside from learning about impact the organization creates, I also learned about the certain techniques they use to grab the reader's attention and create credibility and good reason to believe the arguments they are claiming. Plenty of organizations use celebrities to pull in the attention of readers who otherwise may not be as interested without the known figure present. Statistics also have a big part in achieving a hook and a sort of shock to keep the reader's interest. There's also a way of learning more and getting a clearer idea about these things, as well as about concealed claims, reasoning, fallacies, judgment (suspending, etc.), advertising, and emotion to appeal, and what kinds are used, or if they are presented if at all.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Discussion Question Number One: Part Six
Chapter Eight: General Claims
In this chapter, I found the explanation of how Epstein, along with many other concepts, a contradictory can come from any sort of general claim, which in realization, can be especially common with the plentiful groups of counterarguments and disagreements that can distribute contradictories in a person's argument. The text defines two terms that are used in arguments that can result with contradictories: "all" and "some". All is defined as "every single one, no exceptions," however, this term can vary by meaning "every single one, and there is at least one" (160). The variation will simply depend on the kind of argument presented. Some is defined as "at least one" or "at least one, but not all". (160) Again, the variation will lie on the kind of argument that is being talked about. The contradictory of a claim won't be its direct opposite, but rather its adjacent, so to speak. The example explained in the text illustrates the claim being that all dogs bark. The contradictory to that won't be its direct opposite (all dogs don't bark), but rather the adjacent: some dogs don't bark.
A personal example:
All mothers are women. (claim)
But not all women are mothers. (contradictory)
I, for instance, am a woman, but am not a mother. So by someone making that first sentence as their claim, there can be the possibility of someone else objecting and replying with the contradictory argument that simply because all mothers are women may not always mean or doesn't indicate that all women all mothers. There can be no interchanging of the words, especially in this case.
In this chapter, I found the explanation of how Epstein, along with many other concepts, a contradictory can come from any sort of general claim, which in realization, can be especially common with the plentiful groups of counterarguments and disagreements that can distribute contradictories in a person's argument. The text defines two terms that are used in arguments that can result with contradictories: "all" and "some". All is defined as "every single one, no exceptions," however, this term can vary by meaning "every single one, and there is at least one" (160). The variation will simply depend on the kind of argument presented. Some is defined as "at least one" or "at least one, but not all". (160) Again, the variation will lie on the kind of argument that is being talked about. The contradictory of a claim won't be its direct opposite, but rather its adjacent, so to speak. The example explained in the text illustrates the claim being that all dogs bark. The contradictory to that won't be its direct opposite (all dogs don't bark), but rather the adjacent: some dogs don't bark.
A personal example:
All mothers are women. (claim)
But not all women are mothers. (contradictory)
I, for instance, am a woman, but am not a mother. So by someone making that first sentence as their claim, there can be the possibility of someone else objecting and replying with the contradictory argument that simply because all mothers are women may not always mean or doesn't indicate that all women all mothers. There can be no interchanging of the words, especially in this case.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Discussion Question Number Three: Part Five
Reasoning in a Chain and the Slippery Slope
In Chapter 6, I really took interest in Epstein's concept of reasoning in a chain and the slippery slope. The process of setting up these concepts come from setting up an event where because a person does one thing, another person will do something, which will lead the former person to do something else. In other words, it becomes if A, then B; if A then C; so if A, then C. A chain or reasoning is essentially a chain of conditionals according to the text. However, because the way the conclusion is brought, and the way it reads, sounds silly and dubious, it can lead to an overall bad, yet valid argument. The antecedent starts off reasonable, but then comes the slippery slope of going from one conditional to the other that leads to the conclusion, and therefore, the concept of if A, then C. To prevent this slippery slope, you have to be aware, recognize, and point out one or some of the conditionals from the argument's implausibility.
Example:
If I don't get started on my reading now, then I won't have time to go to dinner.
If I don't go to dinner, I won't get to eat.
So if I don't get started on my reading, I can't eat.
The antecedent starts out well and strong, but as the conditionals are laid out one after the other, the argument gets weaker, and because of that, the consequent becomes something of a dubious and implausible nature.
In Chapter 6, I really took interest in Epstein's concept of reasoning in a chain and the slippery slope. The process of setting up these concepts come from setting up an event where because a person does one thing, another person will do something, which will lead the former person to do something else. In other words, it becomes if A, then B; if A then C; so if A, then C. A chain or reasoning is essentially a chain of conditionals according to the text. However, because the way the conclusion is brought, and the way it reads, sounds silly and dubious, it can lead to an overall bad, yet valid argument. The antecedent starts off reasonable, but then comes the slippery slope of going from one conditional to the other that leads to the conclusion, and therefore, the concept of if A, then C. To prevent this slippery slope, you have to be aware, recognize, and point out one or some of the conditionals from the argument's implausibility.
Example:
If I don't get started on my reading now, then I won't have time to go to dinner.
If I don't go to dinner, I won't get to eat.
So if I don't get started on my reading, I can't eat.
The antecedent starts out well and strong, but as the conditionals are laid out one after the other, the argument gets weaker, and because of that, the consequent becomes something of a dubious and implausible nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)