Needs more help in details.

I must say that the book we are reading for class is very well written and every chapter has great examples and helps explain a lot. But if I had to choose a chapter that I felt could have been explained better it would be chapter 6 on Compound claims.  When they define contradictory of an or claim and contradictory or a an claim. They used A and B to define them and I found it to be a little confusing what A and B were. If they used an example of what each letter stood for, I'd understand it a lot better if it were explain what A and B were. In the book they define contradictory of an or claim as A or B contradictory not A and Not B. I read a web page that said that many people who believe in claims with a lack of evidence is usually people who have wishful thinking. This is a tactic of fallacy that discredits people who have a lack of proof in their claims and or statements does that. (http://www.skepdic.com/ignorance.html)

What I learned in my Assignment..

I think that both assignments were very helpful and useful.  Personaly, reading a chapter and then applying everything or a few things about it, into my paper really helps me understand it better. Also, my group helped me out a lot! There were times where I didn't understand what I was suppose to be writing about, but my group, especially for the las assignment, helped give me a better idea on what I needed to write about and also inspired me to open up my book and read over chapter 9 CONCEALED CLAIMS, and chapter 12, REASONING BY ANALOGY again. Since I had the topic of PETA (people for ethical treatement of animals), I learned about how the would use the power of persuasive definitions to make their arguement. This is a way, in which they would define the problem and say how animals are being used in laboratories and have holes drilled in their heads. This is defining the issue and can not be argued. Reading advertisements for PETA also helped me to learn about proof subsitutes. They would say why people would stop abusing animals because of things the PETA said animals would go through, although it seems convincing, they did not have any proof shown in these ads.

General Claims

A) In Chapter 8, I learned about how the words all, same and only can be the deciding factor on if a claim is true or false.
- Using the word ALL, means "every single one", and that one is at least present.
- SOME means one or more, but not every single one.  
By using these words, it helps create general claims. When general claims are made, it is hard to come up with a contradictory counter argument.
Ex:  Paranormal Activity   is a scary movie. Paranormal Activity isn't scary to everyone.
*Some would come up with a contradictory: "Paranormal Activity is scary to everyone." This is wrong, it should be: "The movie Paranormal Activity is a scary to some people."
B) Validity is a direct way of reasoning with the word "all."
A way to check validity is to draw a diagram.
-What ever circles drawn represents a collection
- One collection is completely inside the other collection circle
-If these circles over lap eachother, that means they have something in common.
-A dot inside the circle will represent a certain object is in that collection
-Now you identify the premises that are true while also showing the conclusion that is false
Ex of valid: All my cats stay indoors. Kell Is my cat. So Kell stays indoors.
:

Argue,counterargument, counter-counterargument

It's important and benefits you, if you bring the others side's arguments in to your controversial claim.
To organize your claims:
1) You should list al your premises and a conclusion
2) The argument with idicaters ( like, as,or, because, etc.)
This helps people stay organized, so that they will know that it is a strong or valid argument off top.  Sometimes people need to make a decision to either have a strong argument that consists of dubious premises, or they can go through every one of their premises and prove them all to be true. If they do this, they leave out the dubious premises, which with out a dubious premise, the claim is not strong or valid. Also, there may be a strong beginning but with out a strong conclusion, it means nothing and leaves the reader hanging. So be sure to make sure the conclusion matches the premises.

Counter Arguments

A) Raising Objectives
Instead of evaluating the argument, many people come up with objectives. This is a common way for people to show that a premise in the argument is dubious and can make the agrument weak. It's good to look at all the possible counterarguments there would be for your permise so that when you respond with your counter-counteragruments' it is clear that your aware of the objections, but know how to fix them.
B)Refuting an Argument is when you find all the ways an argument is unrepairable.
There are two ways of refuting an argument, directly and indirectly. By directly refuting an argument, you show that one of the premise is dubious, the conclusion is false and this reveals that the argument is not valid. Indirectly refuting is usually used when the problem with the premise is not clear, but you know something does not add up. During this time you may notice that the premises are not consistent. This happens when there are many claims, and you need to find on that is false.

Compound Claims

Compound Claims are when there are two different claims put together, yet it has to be considered one claim. Some claims may confuse you and these are called contradictory claims. This means that one of the claims contradicts the other. For example: "She is sitting in the chair." & the contradictory claim would be "She isn't sitting in the chair."  Compound claims are used to help deteremine if the arguement is valid. If someone says either they let students in the game for free or I'm not going to the game. Students do not get in free so I am not going to the game. Therefore I stayed home. This is a valid arguement becuase the premises and conclusion are both true. Its important think of other possiblities while making "or" claims. Not using good possiblities can make a false dilemma, which makes the claim false. Conditional claims usally have "then" or "if" in it. This claim has two parts that make it one complete claim. You can't have one part of it with out the other or it wouldn't be a claim.

Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion & how to repair an arguement

In order for an agruement to be believable there are three different ways to evaluate it.
1) You can just believe the claim
2) Not believe the claim
3) Have a counter arguement and question the claim
 In order to avoid this and fix a faulty claim, there needs to be a premise or conclusion that makes the claim more valid, believable to others, and the premise should be more plausible then it's conclusion.

Ex: I hate running. I ran a mile today.
Analysis: This is not a strong or believable claim because I said I ran after saying I hate running. If I were to add, "I had to run the mile for P.E in order to pass," then it would be more believable. It is more understanding that even though I do not like to  run, it is neccessary in order to pass the class.