3) Which concept was interesting?

I will have to say learning about fallacies was the most interesting thing. After looking at fallacies, it has actually changed the way I argue or talk. Now and then, I am more aware of what I say and I try avoiding fallacies (unless it is not for an argument, just for fun). For serious arguments, yes I do avoid using fallacies. I particularly liked the fallacy section because it really evaluated what arguments are good or bad. For example, it talked about subjective vs objective arguments. Sometimes, I use my own opinions to actually describe a nature of something when in fact, it is really a fallacy because my definition is bias. Basically, watching out for this fallacy really helps people know that their opinion may not be true and that everyone is different. In other words, it is actually good to use objective claims, or whatever is true, to support your argument because objective arguments are actually less biased.

2) What did I think of the class?

First of all, my most favorite thing about this class is the blogging! I love blogging (I own several of them) but I have not blogged in a long time. After taking this class, I realized how much I miss blogging and actually made one for myself the other day recently. Another thing I liked about this class were the blogging topics. They really make you think, and the topics generally fun as well. In a way, I did not see the blogging portion of this class stressful. The only thing that was stressful was not procrastinating but hey, it's actually good for us to stop procrastinating. In other words, there I cannot really complain about the 12 hour waiting time to post blogs.

One thing I did not like about this class (even though it honestly is not a big deal for me, i am just looking for something to dislike about the class. lol) is the fact that we had to e-mail each other. There were some miscommunication with the e-mailing (sending as draft instead by accident instead of e-mailing, cluttered mailboxes, etc) but overall, it was not even that bad. The reason why I am complaining because I actually used the sjsu6 blackboard site thing last semester for an online class which had a discussion board. I actually liked the discussion board feature and became too used to it.

As of now, I cannot think of any way this class be improved, but as I said in the previous paragraph, it would be really nice if the class were provided some type of forum/discussion board to discuss the projects with each other. It saves us from having a cluttered mailbox. :3

1) What I learned

For the most part, I generally learned very useful critical thinking terms. Some terms were things I were really familiar of but I never actually were very aware of them. For example, the types of reasonings, such as reasoning by analogies, or the fallacies, such as proof substitute, were things I noticed using a lot before taking this class.

I also liked the section about strong or valid arguments because it actually went into detail on what arguments are actually good and what are bad. After learning that section, I had a better feel about my arguments. I even gained more skills in evaluating thoughts made by other people and were able to notice whether their arguments were good, bad, or valid.

We also learned more about group communication. I actually liked the concepts in the group communication book because it helped me become more aware of what actually makes a good group. There were some things, such as interdependence, that I was aware of but did not really put that much thought of the importance until reading this book. The section about norms was actually something I could relate too and I liked reading that section as well.

3) Normal Conditions For A Nintendo DS

Normal conditions are claims that remain unstated in an argument. They remain unstated because in most cases, they are not needed in the argument. However, these small details make the argument stronger. A normal condition is more focused on making the cause and effect relationship between two events more valid or stronger. However, because the normal condition claim may be common sense, or may describe a "normal condition" of the current situation, it usually does not need to be stated in the premises or claims. Below is an example of an argument explaining a cause and effect.

My Nintendo DS's light turned red.
It turned red because the battery is dying.
It only turns red when I play my DS for a long time without charging it.

The cause and effect you see above describes the cause and effect simply. I can add more claims which do make the relationship stronger but are not necessary. Here are some examples.

The company, Nintendo, programmed the DS to turn red when the battery is dying or needs to be charged.
As far as I know, a DS is not like a PS3's or Xbox 360's where when you see a red light, it means it needs to addressed.
Since a DS is portable, it would be reasonable to use the red light feature to indicate the battery is dying.

Anyways, there are more to list, but that's just the basic idea. Let's just say if I added those premises, it establishes that the red light for the DS really does mean that the battery is dying. There is no other meaning towards it. However, because those claims are probably already known through common sense, it does not need to be added to the premise.

- Pink Bean

2) Mission Critical Website

This website actually showed very in-depth explanations of most of the content we learned. I noticed that this site listed fallacies we have not learned from our textbook such as Ad Hominem. I also noticed that it organized certain reasonings into an inductive and deductive category. In a previous blog, I mentioned I had trouble understand what exactly an inductive reasoning was. I think this website can give a better understanding of it because subcategories of arguments are actually listed under either inductive or deductive. This lets readers be aware on what type of reasoning they are actually using.

According to the website, causal argument is actually an inductive argument. I actually did not really think about that until I seen this website. Other than that, it also listed other arguments that we may use and identifies them as deductive arguments.

I also thought it was good that they added the Ad Hominem fallacy because it was not listed in the book (or I did not see it). I thought it was good they added that fallacy because some are not aware that the argument itself is actually a fallacy. It basically sums up that you should give anyone's argument a chance no matter what kind of person they are. For example, if a little kid is telling you something that seems unbelievable, you'll probably tell him or her that he or she is lying because little kids are seen as having small knowledge about the world. Although it seems believable, it is still a fallacy to assume that he or she is wrong all because of what the person is.

I thought the Ad Hominem fallacy was very similar to a fallacy we learned which was "mistaking a person or group." I am not sure if it's actually the same fallacy because it didn't state that it was Ad Hominem. It might be though. haha but maybe not

- Pink Bean

1) Cause and Effect Website

The cause and effect website was useful because it went in-depth of a topic that was was scarcely explained. Although the topic of causal reasoning was pretty straightforward and simple, this website still was able to expand my knowledge of it.

I liked how in the end of the page, it explained what makes a causal argument strong because not arguments will always be strong even though they may follow the cause and effect pattern.

Of the three steps they mentioned, the one I thought was the most interesting was the second point which was questioning if the "bicycle" really did cause the accident. It is possible that the driver may have done a mistake or if the cause of the accident was something else other than the bicycle.

I thought this point was interesting because it makes you aware that all because a certain event or thing was present, it doesn't mean that it is the cause of another event. It could be possible that the driver overlooked another cause of the accident because he or she was too focused on the bike. That is why before assuming that the bike caused the accident, we must look into other criteria or clues.

- Pink Bean

3) Fallacy Of Composition In Stereotypes

I thought we were done with most of the fallacies, but there was a new one in this chapter called "fallacy of composition." Basically, fallacy of composition is when we assume that an individual in a group will share the same facts. It is also the same when a group that has an individual will share the same facts. This is a fallacy because it is a mere generalization.

One example of fallacy of composition would be stereotyping. In this case, it would be from the group to the individual. As a Filipino, I know about the stereotype that all Filipinos love to sing. Because of this stereotype, some people may assume that because in the mass media it looks like Filipinos love to sing, any individual who is a Filipino descent likes to sing as well. This is a fallacy because that individual may be different. In fact, he or she may not necessarily like singing. I know some Filipino friends who dislike singing. Basically, when people think of the fallacy of composition, they usually greet a person normally. Later when they see who that person hangs out with, they may think, "Oh. He is one of them."

Another example are groups of friends that share interests. As person that plays a lot of video games, I am classified as a nerd sometimes. If a person that loves to make conclusions based on stereotypes saw me, he or she would probably think that I hang out with other "nerds" as well. The fallacy in that is he or she cannot really assume that my group of friends only consists of "nerds." In terms of playing video games a lot, I guess I can say that some of my friends are "nerds." However, I also have friends who do not even play video games at all or do not fall anywhere near the "nerd" category.

In conclusion, fallacy of composition ignores doing further research by going straight towards conclusions and generalizations. That is a fallacy because individuals in a group, or a group that has a certain individual has many different interests. Because of this, it is hard to really determine how the group or the individual is really like.

2) More On Inductive Reasoning

Of all of the types of reasoning, I thought it was hardest to understand inductive reasoning. The reason is because the descriptions I have seen in books did not really explain it clearly. I could relate to their examples, but it was hard to understand how the reasoning was actually inductive. However, I did some research and found this site.

http://www.experiment-resources.com/inductive-reasoning.html

If you skip it to the inductive reasoning section, they mention about scientists saying that they rely on patterns. When I saw the word "patterns," I got a clearer idea on what inductive reasoning is. Basically, inductive reasoning is like basing your conclusions on observations of patterns. In contrast, deductive would be basing conclusions on things that solidly exist (not observations).

If it's still not clear, think of the weather right now. If you did not have access to the weather forecast, can you predict the weather tomorrow? Although your answer may not be correct, your answer may be based on inductive reasoning. Recently, the weather has been cold and a bit rainy sometimes. From your observations on what the weather has been like recently, you can probably reach a conclusion that tomorrow may also be cold and possibly rainy based on the weather patterns.

- Pink Bean

1) Reasonings Used To Interpret Music

Even though we do not think about it, there are many different ways to reason. In fact, we probably use these reasonings everyday but do not actually know what they are called. Below, I will list the different types of reasoning and examples explaining them.

Reasoning by Analogy

Reasoning by analogy is comparing two similar situations in order to show the significance of one or both. For example, writing lyrical music is similar to yelling out your thoughts when no one is nearby to hear it. The thoughts you yell out are the lyrics of the song. The louder you yell, the more expressive and passionate your music will be because you are not afraid to yell your thoughts out loud. No one hearing your thoughts is like the audience that listens to the music. The most they will hear are the faint echoes of your yells while some will hear your thoughts clearly. In other words, most will not know the real meaning behind the music while others will.

Sign Reasoning
Sign reasoning can be used in order to interpret music. However, our interpretations may not be correct because sign reasoning depends on assumption. For example, in "Save The Best For Last" by Vanessa Williams, the lyrics say,

"It's not the way I hoped or how I planned.
But somehow it's enough.
And now we're standing face to face.
Isn't this world a crazy place?"

For my sign reasoning or interpretation, I think Vanessa was singing about a guy that she clearly did not expect to marry. "And now we're standing face to face" shows a scenario of looking at your significant other while you two are sharing vows on your wedding day.

However, I could be wrong. Also using sign reasoning, someone else may think "standing face to face" can also mean you and your significant other are about to kiss because it can apply to that situation.

Causal Reasoning
Causal reasoning can be used to figure out why musicians write certain songs. For example, when a musician falls in love, they may want to express their emotions through music. In other words, a musician may write a love song because they fell in love. They may also input happy and sad experiences they had in the past into their song. Music may be created because the musician may want to express their experiences through music. Without their experience, the music would never exist.

Reasoning by Criteria
People reason by criteria in order to evaluate what music is "good." Some people dislike rap because they dislike how the lyrics are hardly sung with a melody. Some people dislike slow music because they think it is boring. I do not dislike any of these genres though. Anyways, my point is that because people may think like this, they may also judge what song is "good" in their standards. However, everyone has a different taste in music so some may disagree with other's criteria of a song being "good."

Reasoning by Example
You can use reasoning by example in order to find out what instrument a musician loves playing. For example, although a musician may use various instruments in their music, there may be just that one instrument that appears in most of their songs. Vienna Teng's songs shares a variety of instruments. However, from listening to most of her songs, I can reason that she loves playing the piano the most because the piano is mostly played in most of the songs I have listened to. "Gravity," "Eric's Song," and her other songs usually start with the piano or mostly have the piano playing.

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
We can use deductive reasoning in order to figure out why people write songs. According to most songs, people write about various experiences. In conclusion (through deductive reasoning), I can say that all songs are about experiences. However, in the case of inductive reasoning, we are basically thinking that the premises we make are true. For example, according to what I see, songs are probably written because people like to write about experiences. This is inductive reasoning because I am not using a premises that is provided to me. I am using my own made-up premises (which can also be true).

Reasonings can be used to interpret music. Because of reasoning, many people have different opinions about music. The examples of each reasoning that I listed are basically my interpretation music. In other words, I do not think everyone will have the same interpretations.

- Pink Bean

3) When Feelings Influence Our Thinking In Relationships

Our emotions can affect the way we reach a certain conclusion. Although arguments that have to do with appealing to emotion may sound bad, the conclusions we make are greatly influenced by them. In my opinion, some cases of appealing to emotion may be a good thing. Of course in some cases, it can be a bad thing. Basically when we let our emotions merge into our thinking, we reach prescriptive conclusions which basically tells us what we should or should not do.

Appealing to emotion can negatively affect our prescriptive conclusion. For example, when a couple disagrees with each other, they may get into a fight. Depending on the couple, appealing to emotion can negatively affect them because they may fight endlessly (letting their anger take over them) which can lead to divorce ("I should break up with my spouse because I am very upset with him").

However, although it sounds ironic, it is good for couples to get into a fight because later on, couples may compromise. This is possible because of appealing to emotion. Even though the couple is fighting, their love for each other can make them realize that their fight is not really going anywhere. If the couple loves each other enough, they can also feel that fighting is pointless and only making their relationship worse. In other words, love can make a couple realize that their relationship is more important than whoever wins the argument ("I should try to compromise with my spouse because I still love him"). This is an example of an appealing to emotion because the couple may find that love (their affections and emotions towards each other) is more important than winning a fight. It also helps them understand each other's different views. In other words, a couple can also learn more about each other. This in return can also create a stronger bond for the couple because they would learn to live with each other even with fighting.

What I am trying to say is that appealing to emotion is not bad in general. They can make bad arguments, but in some cases, it may make positive prescriptive conclusions. In my opinion, it is only bad if you reach conclusions that are bad. Other than that, appealing to emotion can positively affect us. Refer to the example I gave about a couple fighting. I think the appealing to emotion is a huge part of a couple that may be fighting with each other. Couples who let negative emotions take over them may not end so well. In contrast, couples who let positive emotions take over them may result to a better solution. In this case, couples may even develop a stronger loving bond with each other.

- Pink Bean

2) Feeling Pity and Reaching a Conclusion

Appealing to pity is when someone does something because they feel pity for whatever he or she is doing it for. In appealing to pity, you are simply giving into a conclusion because you feel it is right due to the fact that you feel guilty you do not agree with the conclusion. Here is an argument that is using this method in order to convince the audience that it is right to do something.

"My little sister is not allowed to eat candy, and I know she loves candy. Therefore, I will give her candy because I feel sorry for her."

This is a bad argument because I am basically showing appeal to pity for my sister when I shouldn't. In the first place, she probably was banned from eating candy because she wasn't taking care of her teeth. There is no good reason to give her candy in this particular argument because it is not very logical. A better argument would say, "Since it is Halloween, I should give my sister candy so that she can celebrate." This argument may still be bad, but it is stronger than my previous argument of appealing to pity. The previous argument was weaker because I was giving candy in an illogical way. However, giving candy while it is Halloween shows a better reason because children usually celebrate Halloween by trick-or-treating and getting candy. The Halloween argument is more reasonable than me feeling pity for my little sister.

- Pink Bean

1) Is Revenge Good?

Appealing to emotion is an argument that can be made by using emotions. In doing this, making people feel guilt, fear, anger, or any emotion can lead them into believing a conclusion.

One example of this is the appeal of spite. Appeal of spite is an argument made using the idea of revenge. Many people usually use this argument when something bad happens to them from the actions of someone or something else. In return, they will usually use their bad actions as a reason why you should believe in a conclusion.

For example, I own a Yelp account and I wrote a review about a Sanrio store. I love Sanrio, but this certain location is not pleasant. In this review, I gave this certain Sanrio store a very low rating because I was accused of stealing when I wasn't. In addition, their employees are horrible because they always keep a close eye on every shopper as if they are all going to steal something. I understand that the area where this Sanrio is located is pretty ghetto but I see that as no excuse for their actions. For the conclusion of my review, I gave this Sanrio 1 star.

This is an example of appealing of spite. As a Yelp user, I wrote a review about this Sanrio and gave it 1 star because I thought they deserved a low rating. This was appealing to spite because I figured that they deserved a low rating for making me and many others have bad experiences there. My conclusion for my "appealing of spite" argument is that this Sanrio deserves 1 star.

However, is revenge good? It feels good but I personally do not think it is acceptable. I like revenge because it makes me feel better but it is also bitter. I am not against using revenge but I do think it is not necessary to always use revenge. In my case with Sanrio, I find it tolerable because giving them 1 star will not really prevent customers from going there. Over time, I still see people shopping in that certain Sanrio. I am okay with revenge as long as it doesn't cause huge damage. I like revenge but it is bad in general.

- Pink Bean

3) Understanding Weasel Claims

Particularly on page 184 of Epstein's textbook, I did not really understand what a "weaseler" was. It was not one of the major vocab words but the word was in bold. The definition was this.

"A weaseler is a claim that's qualified so much that the apparent meaning is no longer there" (Epstein, 2006).

I thought the definition and the example was vague. It took me a while to understand it because it does not exactly show how their example is a weasel claim.

To give a better understanding on what a weaseler is, I found this website showing specific examples.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/advertising/claims/weasel.htm

After reading this, I understood weasel claims better. They are basically claims that are potentially useless or weak because they also have doubt or uncertainty.

For example, "I think my music will impress the audience" is a weasel claim. If you are saying that you "think" your music will impress the audience, the audience would probably be unsure about your music if they heard you say that. However, if you said, "My music will impress the audience," the audience will expect to see impressive music. In other words, we should avoid using weasel claims so that our claims or statements are more believable and convincing.

- Pink Bean

2) Is it reliable?

For our first group assignment, we had to evaluate an editorial. An editorial our group had to do was a political issue. From this assignment, I learned that things that are said in editorials may not be reliable. I have to admit that I actually agreed with the editorial we worked on but this assignment helped me realize that even though an argument seems believable, it was still weak.

First of all, we know that evidence is one of the most important things we need to introduce in our arguments. If an argument lacks evidence, then the argument becomes weaker.

Our group had to write about why Republican's vote against Obama's economic proposals. In this argument, the author reached the conclusion that Republicans are simply voting against Obama because he is a Democrat. One of the author's support for his conclusion was that there was a series of events that coincidentally happened. For example, he explains that Republicans have voted affirmatively to certain economic proposals in the past, then he adds that Obama has those same ideas but Republicans refuse to vote for them. Instead, Republicans are waiting for a Republican president to present those certain proposals. From there, that is when Republicans will vote affirmatively for them.

Personally, I thought because this editorial lacked solid evidence, it was a weak argument. The coincidence was shocking and did persuade me but if you are being realistic, coincidences in most cases do not make strong or valid arguments. It is similar to saying that someone is running therefore, they are in a hurry. It is a coincidence because people usually run when they need to get to their destination in time, but it may also mean the person is trying to get exercise.

This assignment helps you realize that there are other options and occassions that can happen which made the author reach his conclusion. Arguments for his conclusion are not only limited to the arguments he presents. There may be other cases, and maybe they can become potential arguments.

- Pink Bean

1) Knowing the Definition of "All" and "Some"

Two terms, often misused, were defined in Chapter 8. The words, "all" and "some," are simple indicators of generalizations. Although these two words are used a lot, not being careful in what you say when you use them may make you state a generalization.

When you use "all," you are referring to everything in the certain group you mention. This means that if there is at least one thing that does not apply to your claim, then your claim simply does not fit into the "all" category because it did not apply to everything. There are some cases where you can use "all" validly.

For example, I can simply say that all of my guitar strings are old because I have been using them for over four years. (I should change them but I want to save money) :P

However, if I wanted to use "all" incorrectly, I can be conceited and say that all of my semi-formal dresses are pretty. Obviously, this cannot be an all-statement because others may think at least one of my dresses is ugly. Since one of my dresses may look ugly to another person, then it takes off the point of me saying that they are all pretty.

In this case, it would be more appropriate to use "some." When you mention some, you are referring to not the whole population, but a portion of it. This portion can be as small as just one out of the million. You cannot use "some" when you want to refer to all.

For example, I can say that some SJSU students have never taken a chemistry class. This is true because I never took a chemistry class. If you are wondering how that is possible, taking a chemistry class was not required in my high school. In fact, we could take an alternate course which was forensic science and still get into a CSU.

However, if I wanted to use "some" incorrectly, I can say that some of the cakes I bake are delicious. This is incorrect because it is possible that all of the cakes I bake taste horrible, or all taste delicious. Basically, you cannot mix "some" and "all" into one meaning.

"All" or "some" may be two overused words, but people can still misuse them. One thing you should be careful about is that people's perspective on certain things may change the meaning from "all" to "some" or "some" to "all." I think all of my dresses are pretty which is why I picked them out. However, someone may think one of my dresses is ugly which turns my claim into a "some" claim.

- Pink Bean

3) Finding Me in a Clothing Store Using "Or" Claims

When I go shopping with anybody, especially in clothes stores, I sometimes tell my group ahead of time where I will be browsing. In a way, I do want to tell them what I plan to buy, but another reason why I tell them where I am shopping is so that they know where to find me if they need me.

For example, when I walk into a clothing store during the spring or summer, I usually look around the dress section or the clearance for cheaper out-of-season clothing. My sister actually has found me in a clothing store a few times without calling me with her cell phone. How did she do it? She used "or" claims of course!

Since she knows that I am either looking at the dress or clearance section, she can make a claim. "She is at the dress section, or she is browsing through the clearance." From this logic, I am simply either at the dress or clearance section. First my sister checks the dress section. If I am not there, she can conclude that I am hanging around the clearance section. However, if it is the other way around where I am not at the clearance section, then she can conclude that I am by the dress section. Either way, she can use reasoning with the "or" claim to figure out where I am in a clothing store. She does not have to call me and ask where I am located.

So, in conclusion, "or" claims can be used for finding people if you know the places they can possibly be ahead of time. It can also be used when you are in a life-sized maze. Banfante Gardens in Gilroy has a huge maze and if you do not use "or" claims, you will get lost unless you have a good photographic memory. D: If you reach a dead end, just use the "or" claim and assume if that path is a dead end, the other path that you did not choose at the fork is the correct path. :D

2) Counterarguments Towards Cute Things

Chapter 7 was mainly about counterarguments. A counterargument is basically a way to point out a flaw that can coincide with an argument made. In doing this, you point out the negative aspects of the argument when only the positive was shown.

One way of countering an argument is by raising an objection. When you raise an objection, you find a flaw in one's argument or claim. In other words, someone's argument may be untrue or not 100% true.

For example, here is a conversation me and my sister had.

Me: That welsh corgi is sooooo cute!
Sister: They are NOT cute. They are loud. That is not cute and they look ugly too. (objection)
Me: You are just saying that because one bit your nose.
Sister: No, I am saying that because they are always fat and they are trouble makers. It bit my nose, and that's mean; not cute. They're stupid. (objection)

She's really just joking around but a corgi really did bite her nose. LOL

As you can see, my sister was raising objections for my claims because she disagreed with them. At the same time, she even provided personal opinions to back up her claim. I disagree with her most of her claims too but there's no need to raise another objection because I know she's just joking.

Another way of countering an argument is refuting it. When you refute an argument, you are pointing out that the argument is flawed. This can show that the conclusion for the argument is false. Here is an example of refuting an argument.

My boyfriend hates Shinx, Hello Kitty, Plusle, Croagunk, Blue Bear, and Mamegoma. All the characters I just mentioned are all cute cartoon animals. I can conclude that he hates all cute cartoon animals.

He actually saw this argument and refuted it. He mentioned that the premise, "All the characters I just mentioned are all cute cartoon animals," is not believed to be true, or was dubious. He doesn't believe it should be true because he and many others think Croagunk is a butt ugly pokemon. He also said that my argument was not 100% true because he adores most cute cartoon animals. Because of this, my argument was not very strong or valid because the conclusion will always be false or will always be unlikely. The conclusion will always be false because he does not hate all cute cartoon animals.

- Pink Bean

1) Claims in Phoenix Wright (Minor Spoilers)

If you are not aware of what Phoenix Wright is, it's mainly a video game series where you play as a lawyer, and it's one of my favorite games too. In terms of game play, you have to investigate crime scenes for evidence, and use the evidence in court in order to find contradictions in people's testimonies. Since chapter 6 revolves around different types of claims, I thought it would be appropriate to talk about this video game because you have to evaluate many claims and look for lies or bad arguments in testimonies.

First of all, you will run into testimonies that are contradictory to the evidence you come across. For example, I remember there was a case where a boyfriend died, and the girlfriend was basically accused of murder because it seemed her boyfriend wrote a dying message with her name on the floor. "Maggie," was written which was supposedly the girlfriend's name. According to the testimony, the witness said that the girlfriend's name was written on the floor.

However, as a lawyer, you had to study the evidence and facts provided for you. One of the claims made in a witness' testimony actually had a contradiction, or a negation. Fortunately for this case, you had the full names of the people involved in this case including the girlfriend and the boyfriend. According to the police report, the defendant's, or girlfriend's, name was actually spelled, "Maggey." This negation provided a contradiction to the witness' testimony of saying that the defendant's name was written on the floor because the name written on the floor was spelled differently than in the police report. The claim was contradictory to the facts or the opposite of the circumstances.

In addition, Slippery Slope arguments are made in people's testimonies as well. Although the claims in the Slippery Slope argument seem they are true, most of the time you will be finding a claim that cannot be 100% true, or not true at all. In this case, any claims or conditionals and conclusions that were chained after the false, or dubious, claim may be false as well.

For example, people will often unintentionally make a Slippery Slope argument when they are trying to lie or hide something. I remember a witness testifying about a two men, one being the murder victim and the other being the defendant, or her boyfriend. She testifies that the victim was shoved two times and electrocuted with a wire circuit by the defendant. During the fight, she was listening to music and watching. However, the lawyer thought one of the witness' claims was not plausible. It turned out that the time elapsed during this "fight" was about 10 minutes, and the lawyer thought it was suspicious that the witness was listening to music and watching them fight the whole time. From this, the lawyer suspected that the witness wasn't telling the truth. Because one of the witness' claims was not plausible, or believable, her Slippery Slope argument saying that her boyfriend killed the victim became not plausible as well. Her testimony, or chain of claims, had one claim, which was her listening to music, that did not seem plausible at the time. This, therefore, made all the conclusion and claims connected after become false or dubious as well.

As you can see, it is best if claims you make are as believable as possible. Make sure that after making a claim, there are no gaps or holes that can confuse any listeners. If not, you may be falling for traps, or you could even be accused of lying or making a bad argument. If this happens, no one will believe you.

3) What are the Possibilities?

When I do not know the answer for something, sometimes I try to think of a theory of some sort to find it. I do think this is a good way to find an answer if evidence is really not present but in some cases, it may lead me to a false conclusion. This is something everyone should look out for because people's thinking may usually be based on this. Before we reach a conclusion by using this method, we have to see if our "theory" is actually possible. Of course, our reasoning may seem like a likely solution or answer, but we also need to think of the possibilities of it being true.

For example, my sister loves doing arts and crafts. If my sister's friends came to our house and saw a new hand-sewn plush toy, my sister's friends would probably say that she made it because she loves doing arts and crafts. It seems believable that she makes plush toys. However, we also have to think of the possibility of this situation happening. Apparently, my sister is at Davis right now which is about two hours away from San Jose. This brings up that it's less possible that my sister made that plush toy because she is far away from it. Another thing that makes is less possible is that I also love making plush toys as well. Since I live in our parent's house while my sister is at Davis, it would seem more reasonable that the plush toy should be at Davis if it belonged to her. In contrast, the plush toy that is at San Jose would belong to me.

It is good to look out for this mistake because you may jump into conclusions before thinking thoroughly. It's a pretty simple mistake many people fall for because people will always make assumptions or theories if they curiously want to find out an answer.

- Pink Bean

2) Advertising Jamba Juice's Cheeseburger Chill

I'm pretty sure you have seen or heard Jamba Juice's advertisement for the new Cheeseburger Chill. It was advertised about a month or two ago online. I'm not very sure if it was aired on television but I HIGHLY doubt it was. Below is the official commercial for it if you haven't seen it. Don't watch it if you are eating or can get sick easily!



(O__O)

So to summarize what that is, it's basically a blended burger that is served like a smoothie. Like me, you are probably thinking that's disgusting (or not). I will admit, I was gullible enough to think that this was real but I still had huge doubts because it looked too crazy and gross. XD Anyways, a few days later, Jamba Juice announced that they would not go that far so in the end, that advertisement was fake. However, I'm going to talk about this piece of advertisement because I would like to point out things that did make it look like a typical advertisement trying to make you buy the product, and what you should do to not believe them.

Advertisements will make you want to buy the product no matter what. In doing so, some advertisements will always try to eliminate any negativity and encourage a positive atmosphere. For example, did you notice the happy music playing? Happy music will psychologically make the audience think positively about the product. Most people probably thought at first, "EW that's disgusting," but the music alone can make you think, "It can't be THAT bad."

Another thing to pay attention to were the facial expressions of the people. NO one had a disgusted face including the lady and the little girl trying out the smoothie in the end. Instead, the lady and the little girl had smiling faces. A person watching this advertisement that, based on his or her own experience, knows very well how a blended cheeseburger will taste like would still think that the lady and the little girl's faces should look disgusted. However, for a really gullible person, or the typical newbie consumer, he or she would think, "They look like they're enjoying the Cheeseburger Chill so I will probably try it out!"

Last of all (I know there's more but I'll only address three things), the advertisement itself is made by Jamba Juice, a very famous business that many people probably think is reliable. Because Jamba Juice is very popular and reliable (saying their smoothies are healthy and delicious, etc) for majority of people, it means that their advertising like the Cheeseburger Chill is trusted to be "delicious" as well. However, as I said before, some people may think otherwise because they trust their own experiences more than they will trust anything else. Most people will think that it will not be delicious.

Overall, I thought this was a good advertisement, and I mean that in terms of trying to get people to buy the product. They did a good job in trying to make you believe their "claims" or assume their Cheeseburger Chill will taste delicious because the lady and the little girl seemed to enjoy it. In addition, everybody else seemed to support it as well. Many people such as myself think Jamba Juice's smoothies were always delicious and if gullible, may think that this smoothie will be worth buying as well. The only thing that made it pretty much unbelievable was that the idea seemed too silly and funny. Don't be fooled and depend on your personal experience and thinking. If this smoothie really was real, I would probably stay away from it no matter how persuasive their advertisement is!

- Pink Bean