Week 3 Question 3

Organizational Culture.

Organizational culture refers to the way in which we are brought up in our surroundings. It's like some people are encouraged to speak and some are not. I find it interesting that some people aren't encouraged to speak much or question their surroundings. I don't believe that that makes for a healthy relationship with anything or anybody. I do think that questioning is what makes a person a smarter person. A smart person isn't one who has all the answers it's what who asks all that questions. The ability to discuss certain issues without feeling bad or feeling shy will make a person so much better off. Ignorance isn't bliss in many occasions. Also the culture involves many different traditions and rituals. It's a lot about being organized and set in your own ways and beliefs.

Week 3 Question 2

Ridicule is making fun of the other person to hurt their reputation therefore helping yourself win the argument. For example I get might get into an argument with the smartest person in the school. He might say that we need to lower pollution in order to combat global warming. If I say don't listen to this nerd and do whatever you want, that is ridicule. I find it funny that this is the way children handle most of their battles, but you still see many people engage in this. I often see people with low self esteems do this because they feel they have no other choice. These people are called bullies. A bully can be old or young but the tactics are the same. Calling somebody out for the way they act or dress and diverting the real problem at hand. These are all smoke screens to distract people from seeing the truth. Ridicule is also quite hurtful for the victims of ridicule. I don't think it has any place in arguments whether professional or juvenile. It just makes me sad when I witness this fallacy first hand. It makes me even more sad when I'm apart of it in a non friendly confrontation.

Week 3 Question 1

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.

Argument? Yes

Conclusion: I might as well stop and get breakfast

Additional premises needed: If the person was hungry then breakfast would make more sense.

Identify any subargument: 2,3,4 are supportive in being late, but they don't support 1.

Good Argument? No, horrible argument, if you're late don't be even later. If you're hungry and dying of starvation then eat.

This exercise doesn't really help in my opinion. I mean it's nice to be able to pick apart arguments, but this seems useless to me. I understand it's a good skill to have, but I don't think it's good in this format. This kind of robotic and it seems like it takes the emotion out of claims. I feel arguments though logical, can still be swayed by emotion and body language, not just claims.

Week 2 Question 3

Leadership is a key factor and major skill that we put into effect in many everyday situations. In the textbook, leadership is defined as “the exercise of interpersonal influence toward the attainment of goals. A key factor in having leadership is the role of communication. Without this key factor of communication, one cannot fulfill the job of being a leader because one must know how to talk and communicate with whom you’re talking too. For example, in a working environment, your manager or boss may have authority over you in which they are the leaders who give you orders that become your goals for that job. There are four different types of leadership. In the book, they are listed as authoritarian, consultative, participate, and laissez-faire. My favorite type of leadership and that I see as being most fair is consultative leadership. It is defined as “bases decisions upon the opinions or ideas of group members”. Authoritarian leadership is defined as the leader having control without any input from members. Without having any input, you aren’t communicating with any group members and that can cause many problems amongst each other.

Week 2 Question 2

Strong and Valid Arguments are not the same thing. I thought they were the same until reading the text.

Valid - a valid argument just means the conclusion can't be false if the premise is false. The argument might not be possible at all, but it's still valid. For example I was talking to a friend the other day about major changes at school. He said they didn't accept his major change because his GPA was below a 3.0. Therefore all people switching majors from this point on will need a atleast a 3.0 to change majors. Is it true? Quite possible, but I haven't checked. According to my friend can the scenario he set up have a false conclusion with a true premise. No.

Strong - A strong argument is one that seems plausible. It's pretty much if you can believe it or not. A friend yesterday told me that one of our friends is pregnant. He has no proof to back this up, but I believe it could be true because this particular is careless in her sexual activities.

Week 2 Question 1

Chris has 15 dollars. A new shirt costs 12 dollars. Chris comes back with a new shirt so Chris must have 3 dollars left.

This a scenario I just made up and now lets test to see if it makes any sense.

The premise is plausible

Chris could very well have 15 dollars in cash and a new shirt can cost 12 dollars.

The premise is more plausible then the conclusion

Chris having money and looking to buy a new shirt is more plausible than him having spent the money on a new shirt.

The argument is weak for many reasons. A who knows if chris bought that 12 dollar shirt as opposed to a 10 dollar shirt. Also who knows if Chris even bought the shirt to begin with.

The argument isn't valid either because the premise and the conclusion might have nothing to do with each other.

Question 3

I know I'm late on posting this, but even if i don't get the credit I'll do it anyways. I want to talk more about vague sentences. Earlier I posted that I am guilty of vague sentences. I would like to try to make a commitment to not making vague sentences any longer. A teacher of mine recently had a discussion with the class on vague sentences. She felt that sometimes minimum word counts were to blame for vague sentences. I totally agree with her statement. It's hard writing an essay with a certain word count. Sometimes even the best of us can't manage 2000 words about a specific topic. That is why students are forced to do essays with vague topics and thesis statements, because we're so afraid of looking like idiots when we can't fill up the pages.

Question 2 Vague Sentences

I'm glad the topic of vague sentences has come up. I have to say i'm guilty of vague sentences, and i'm guilty of laughing hysterically at them as well. One of my favorite shows on TV is 30 Rock starring Tracy Morgan. On the show Morgan plays a character named Tracy Jordan, who for lack of a better word is stupid. In one episode Tracy Jordan gives advice to an intern by saying, "Live every week like it's Shark Week." I always laugh at this line because it doesn't make a bit of sense, but that's just it it doesn't make a bit of sense. I suppose he's trying to convey the message of living every week like you watch Shark Week on the Discovery Channel, but one can't really tell. I understand the writers of the show wrote this line to achieve laughter, but usually comedy is an exaggerated form of real life. I know a normal person wouldn't say something so vague to this extreme, but I know a lot of people who aren't too far off the mark.

Question 1

I hear subjective claims all the time. I was recently talking to a friend about music. He asked me if I liked an album as much as he did. The album is called the Minstrel Show by Little Brother. He said it was one of the best albums of all time and i agreed with him, because I felt like it was the best albums of all time. I said it was in my top 3 albums of all time. Though I believe it's a very good album it's subjective from person to person. Another person could quite possibly hate it.

An objective claim I recently heard was I that San Jose State has 30,000 students. I don't know if this is accurate or totally true, but it seems like it makes sense. It's a claim that we can easily verify as true or false. I also heard at the bookstore that San Jose State graduates 6,000 students every year. That is also an objective claim because it's easily verifiable.

P.S.
I did a little math in my head it takes 30,000 students 5 years to graduate.

GOB