Question#3

The concept that I chose go over this week has to do with the perceptions that are made by group members towards each other during the course of a group project. All the time group members are changing the way they perceive the other members in the group. These perceptions are always changing due to many various factors, which can include things ranging from the tone of the situation to the expressions on the faces of the other group members, which change our feelings at that given moment. These perceptions can set the overall tone for how a group meeting goes, or how well group members are able to get along. The concept also talks about how quickly these perceptions can be made, especially when regarding things like facial expressions, which can subconsciously change someone's perception of someone else within a matter of seconds. It is interesting to think about the different ways perceptions can be made, and how quickly they can also change.

Question#2

The fallacy that I choose to cover from the text was ‘Ridicule’, from the section on Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion. This fallacy has to do with situations, where people put someone or something down, in order to try and further there own goal of trying to convince someone of something. Very often you hear this happen in the real world, from academic to professional situations, and even around the home sometimes.

A real world example of this taking place can be seen in the following conversation, that I heard a few semesters ago, though the names are made up.


John: Hey mark do you want to go surfing later?


Mark: Sure dude, that sounds awesome, but are the waves actually going to be out when we arrive? Maybe we should check online first?


John: Nah dude, it is going to be fine, just trust me.


Mark: Like the last time we trusted you, and ended up driving 3 hours to get to an ocean of glass?! Like I said bro, I think we should check.


John: Fine dude, you didn’t have to go there though, I told you it was a mistake.

This is a good example of ridicule, because Mark is ridiculing John about being wrong before, to try and convince John they should check online for the wave report before heading out.

Question #1 week of Feb. 14-20

3) Las Vegas has too many people. There's not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people. And the infrastructure of the city can't handle more than a million: The streets are overcrowded, and traffic is always congested; the schools are overcrowded, and new ones can't be built fast enough. We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and country.

Argument? The argument is that Las Vegas is overpopulated.

Conclusion: The conclusion is that new laws should be put in place, regarding zoning laws, and how the city determines what is an appropriate amount of people to have immigrating to the city.

Additional premises needed? To make the argument more convincing, the author could have cited facts regarding his statements on population and immigration.

Identify any subarguments: The first subargument is that there isn't enough water to support the current population, and the second subargument that preventing people from living there and stricter zoning regulations will solve the problem of overpopulation.

Good argument? I think it is a pretty strong argument, since it is common knowledge to most people that there are a lot of people in Las Vegas at any given time, and that is in the middle of a desert. Overall, it is a oretty convincing argument.

Question #3

A concept which I found to be interesting had to do with cohesion in groups. This basically has to do with how well members of the same group are able to “mesh” with each other, and how they are able to come together to meet the common goal of the group, without fracturing the group goal into different agendas.

The concept goes on to detail how there are commonalities between cohesive groups, which can usually be identified in individual groups that are able to work cohesively with each other. Some of these commonalities can include things like finding high amounts of individual group member satisfaction in terms of how the group is working and communicating with each other. Another is that groups that are able to work cohesively with each other show a higher rate of efficiency in terms of being able to complete the task while maintaining a positive outlook towards their portion of completing the group goal.

It is clear from the concept that was presented that finding a cohesive group that is able to work is much better than just attempting to complete a group task with members that can’t come together to work toward a common goal.

Question #2

Well, I was asked to come up with a good example of a strong versus a valid argument, and this is what I was able to come up with at the time.

An everyday example of a strong argument would be that the majority of game consoles fail due to high temperatures. My game console was working fine yesterday, but now it isn’t working. Therefore, my game console failed to due heating issues. This is a strong argument because its premises are plausible; if lots of consoles have this problem then it’s likely that my console has overheated too. But it’s not a valid argument because the console could have failed due to a power surge, the dog peeing on it, etc.

A valid argument using the same premises would be that after my console, which was out of reach of animals and using a surge protector, failed, I checked the external temperature of the console, and found that it exceeded the recommended temperature limits, and smelled like heated plastic.

Problem #1 week of feb. 7-13

While reading through the examples, I was having a bit of a hard time trying to come up with one at first. But eventually I realized that all I needed to do was simplify things, and just try to make an example out of just whatever random thing I happened to be thinking about. So after browsing a car forum, I came up with this:

Example: Fast cars get ticketed. A Dodge Viper is a fast car. If you buy a Viper, you will get a ticket.

Analysis: The premise is plausible because often with very fast sports cars, the owners will be tempted to go over the speed limit, which often results in a speeding ticket. The conclusion is bad, because not all people who end up buying Vipers will receive speeding tickets, but the premise of the argument is sound, because a majority of the people that buy fast cars do get tickets. The argument is strong, because the premise holds some truth, but it is not a valid argument because of the fact that not all Viper owners receive speeding tickets.

Question#3

One of the concepts from the small comm book that I chose to discuss in further detail discusses with overcoming communication apprehension in groups. I thought this was pretty interesting, as this tends to be a big problem in some online classes when the students are forced to come together and collaborate on their own time and under their own direction.

The concept talks about the anxiety that some people feel when they have to communicate with other group members, or the pressure that they feel when they know that will have to communicate with other group members at some point. It goes on to discuss how students who feel this apprehension do not perform as well as they could, had they not been suffering from the anxiety caused by the requirement of group communication. This seems to be a very important point, as anyone who is worrying about something, whether it be group communication or anything else, is not able to devote 100% of their abilities to the task at hand.

Question#2

Walking across the campus at San Jose State University, I often find myself in a position where I will hear very vague sentences or comments while walking past people. Whether or not this has to do with the age of many of the people on campus, or the fact that they are still students, but I do know that it seems to happen quite often. Just the other day while walking back to the parking garage, after my class had already let out, I overheard a very vague sentence while waiting for the crosswalk signal to change. It was two girls talking to each other, and when I had walked up near them I heard one girl say to the other, “You know what I mean by cute, he was tallish, he had hair, he was a good looking guy…” to which the other girl responded, “Well that really narrows it down for me.” All I could think of at the time, was “really, you are a full-time student, and that is the most information on something that you could come up, was that vague ramble?”

Question#1

While the different approaches to dealing with the objective problems of the deficit and national healthcare may be highly subjective depending on one’s political point of view, the objective fact remains that these issues are causing internal strife, not only within the country, but in Washington as well.

Even among parties that claim to have similar points of view, these problems are such dividing issues that the proposed solutions end up being highly subjective as well.

For example, looking at the deficit objectively, the overwhelming amount of money owed decreases economic stability both nationally and abroad. However, the proposed solutions range from person to person, and are therefore subjective. Some want to raise taxes, while other want to raise them.

While objective problems like the need for a national healthcare plan can be agreed upon, in the sense that there is a definite need for a concrete plan for the country, due to the large groups of uninsured people and the fact that healthcare costs are a leading factor in causing debt, the ways to solve the problem range from individual to individual, and are therefore subjective.