"Red Bull gives you wiiings"

The advertisement that I chose for this post is an advertisement made by the energy drink Red Bull. Red Bull chose to sponsor the freestyle motocross super star Robbie Maddison. In the advertisement, Maddison is jumping over the Arc de Triomphe in Las Vegas. As soon as he makes the high jump, he takes off his helmet and says, "Welcome to my world, the world of Red Bull." It is then written on the screen, "Red Bull gives you wiiings." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXa02tB8DLo

In section A & B of chapter 5, it says that we can accept or reject a claim based on our personal experiences as well as other reliable sources.

I am going to reject this claim and disagree with it. Even though I love Robbie Maddison and consume Red Bull often, I do not agree with the claim that Red Bull gives you wings. Based on my own experiences, I do not find that Red Bull gives me wings. Of course, I know that this claim is a metaphor. Red Bull does not literally give people wings; it implies that people will feel more energized then usually. Based on my own experiences, I do not believe this claim. I have drank Red Bull many times before and it honestly has never really worked on me. Red Bull has never energized my friend Stephanie either. Neither of us felt that Red Bull "gave us wings."

Also, I have read many articles, written by doctors and researchers, explaining that Red Bull was not healthy for our bodies. Enhance why it was banned for a really long time in France for example.

Overall, based on my personal experiences with Red Bull, as well as the articles I have read, I chose to reject the claim.

Repaired Argument

Repairing arguments is a very easy concept. While repairing an argument, we are allowed to add a premise or a conclusion as long as it satisfies three steps:
-The argument is transformed into a strong or valid argument
-The premise added is a plausible one and other people believe it to be plausible as well
-The premise must be more plausible than the conclusion
We are also allowed to delete one of the original premises IF the argument does not become worse from us doing so.

Argument: Only Anaheim Ducks fans like Corey Perry. Therefore I like Corey Perry.

Analysis: "I am a Ducks fan" is the only premise that needs to be added in order for the argument to be a valid or strong argument. Therefore, we need to add this premise.
With this premise added, the argument would be: Only Anaheim Ducks fans like Corey Perry. I am a Ducks fan. Therefore I like Corey Perry. Once the premise is added, the argument is good.

How does mentoring work?

One concept that I liked and found useful from the materials we read was the exaplanation of how mentoring works and why it is so important. The Book "The Essential Guide to Communication," written by Dan O’Hair and Mary Wieman, does a great job at explainning the concept of mentoring. Mentoring is really important, especially in our society today. Mentors are really helpful because they pass on knowledge and skills to their students, in order for them to later on become as experienced and skilled as their mentors. The authors of the book developped four stages in mentoring; First off, "initiation". During the first stage, the mentor and his student become more aquainted with one another and the mentor starts to advise the student. During this stage, it is very important for both parties to communicate and pay attention to one another. The second stage is called "cultivation." During this stage the mentor and his student become closer and more skills are passed on by the mentor. During stage three, "separation," the mentor and his student start to separate. Either because the student is able to stand on his own and no longer needs the mentor, or because the student might simply need to be moved. During the last and fourth stage, "Redefinition," the relationship between the mentor and his student is "redefined"; they are now equals.

I found this section really interesting because in the work field today, mentors are really common and I found it interesting to see how mentoring works and how to do it.

Content Fallacies- Bad appeal to authority

Bad appeal to authority is to me, the easiest and most interesting content fallacy.
A real world example of bad appeal to authority I have recently heard would be this: "Do not engage in any kind of conversation with any boy at the party tonight, it will end up in you having relations you will later on regret." My friend and I were getting ready at her place to go to a party when her brother came in and interrupted us to say this specific claim. Now my friend's brother, who is really protective, was using bad appeal to authority in the way that he is the eldest, and as her older brother, she should listen to what he says and follow his advise. This specific fallacy occurs when someone of a higher position or rank tries to persuade you that whatever they are saying is right because they are somehow "higher" than you are. In this specific example, since he is the eldest brother, his opinion matters and everything he says should be (but is not always) right. Had he stated his argument differently, my friend and I would not have rolled our eyes at him. Had he said something like "You girls be careful tonight, you never know what kind of people you will meet and some people might not have good intentions," we would have taken him more seriously and would have listened. We however are used to him, and knew he had good intentions at heart (:

The Structure of Arguments

#2: (1) I'm on my way to school. (2) I left five minutes late. (3) Traffic is heavy. (4) Therefore, I'll be late for class. (5) So I might as well stop and get breakfast.

Argument: Yes.
Conclusion: Since I am going to be late to class, I might as well stop to get breakfast.
Additional premises needed: There should be a premise in between 4 and 5 which explains why it is okay to go get breakfast and be even more late to class. For example: It does not matter whether I am 5 minutes late or 30 minutes late to class, my teacher will still mark me late.
Identifying any subargument: 1, 2, and 3 are independent and 4 is the result of those 3 subarguments. 5 is the conclusion.
Good argument: Yes I think it is a good argument IF the additional premise is added to the argument. The premises are plausible and do explain why one would be late to school. The argument would then be valid with the new added premise. If the new premise was not added however, the argument is not good because one could very easily say that by stopping to get breakfast, one would be even more late to class which is not good. It would therefore not make it okay to stop for breakfast even if one was already late for class, and the argument would not be good.

This exercise did help me because I learned exactly how an argument is structured and how to break it down. It was also good because I realized how one premise can change an argument completely. This exercise was overall useful.

Types of Leadership

In chapter 3 of the book, "The Essential Guide to Group Communication," written by Dan O' Hair and Mary O. Wiemann, the subject of leadership is brought up. Moreover, the authors developed four different types of it: authoritarian, consultative, participative, or laissez-faire.
An authoritarian leader is a leader who does everything in his own way and does not consult with the other group members. An advantage of such leaders is that decisions are made faster, however most group members tend to not be satisfied.
On the other hand, a consultative leader asks for other's opinions. This kind of leader will ask other group members for ideas and will check in with them in order to make sure his/her final decision is educated and well thought-through. In this type of leadership however, the leader still makes his decision alone.
A participative leader is a leader who consults with his/her group members and does not make a decision on his/her own. This kind of leader does not have any more power then any of the other group members but does facilitate communication between his/her group members. In these kind of groups, the outcome tends to be greater and of better quality since everyone is working together.
A laissez-faire leader is a leader who will not get involved in anything and will not facilitate any type of communication. The leader will let everything pass by and will not take action towards anything. This is said to be the least effective leadership of them all.

Strong versus Valid Arguments

A strong argument is an argument which has true premises and a conclusion that is highly plausible. A valid argument has true premises as well, it however has a valid conclusion that is for sure true. The difference between a valid and strong argument is whether or not the conclusion is plausible.
For example: The Ducks of Anaheim won the Stanley Cup in 2007. This argument is valid because it is a true fact that has happened.
An example of a strong argument would be: Every time I attend a Sharks vs. Ducks hockey game, the Ducks always win. Therefore, when I attend the next game in October, the Ducks will win again. In this specific argument, the premise is true. It is true that every time I have gone to a Ducks game in San Jose, they have won the game. The conclusion is plausible but is not valid. I do not know for sure that the Ducks will win the next game. The Ducks could be having an off-day and could very easily lose the game. This argument is therefore a strong argument because the conclusion is plausible but is not a 100%.

Good Argument?

Ryan Sheckler is the youngest skateboarder to ever participate in the X-games. He was awarded the gold medal this year for his skating abilities during the competition. Ryan Sheckler is therefore the most talented skateboarder in the world. 

This is a strong argument; it is however not valid. The premises are true and give true facts which would influence people to believe the conclusion to be true as well. However, the argument is not valid. Even though it is an accurate fact that Sheckler is the youngest skateboarder to have ever participated in the X-games, and even though he did win the gold medal this year, it does not necessarily mean that he is the best skateboarder in the world. It is true that there is a high chance for the conclusion to be valid based on the premises; however there are also some chances for the conclusion to be false. Since there are millions of skateboarders in the world, many who do not participate in the X-games, it is very hard to prove that Sheckler is the best out of them. The other skateboarders participating in the competition might have also been having an off-day and might have not been performing at their best. Many people also rate skateboarders on different scales and would argue that Sheckler did not in fact deserve gold. It is very possible that Sheckler is in fact the best skateboarder and that the conclusion is therefore valid; it is however very difficult to prove with the given information. Even though the premises are true and state concrete facts, since the conclusion is not certain and cannot be proven, the argument is strong, but not valid.

how can one avoid having problems communicating with his group?

The book "The Essential Guide to Group Communication" written by Dan O'Hair and Mary O. Wiemann mentions a very important concept to help improve the communication between a group and its member. The concept I chose to talk about explains how to avoid misunderstandings and problems in between group members. As the book explains, there are four things one can do in order to prevent any communication problems from occurring between himself and his group members. First off it says that it is important for people to be able to communicate with one another without feeling attacked. It is important to trust one's group members of course, but it is also important to discuss arguments and ideas in order to avoid misunderstandings or lack of communication later on. The second point made is to avoid making an issue more simple. Some people tend to want to avoid the issue completely and tend to want to make it more simple to avoid any kind of confrontation which is not good. It is important to discuss an issue fully and it is better to argue about it (in a polite manner) instead of settling for something that will later on cause an issue. My experience this summer is a perfect example to show that making an issue more simple does not work. This summer, my friends and I decided to take a road trip to Los Angeles. We had agreed that we would go to Disneyland, visit the Honda Center, attend some sporting events, etc. When the time came to discuss money issues and traveling plans, one of my friends told us to do as we pleased as she did not want to get involved in the planning. When we got to LA however, she complained that the trip was costing her too much money and that we should have gone to more places she wanted to go to. Had she participated in the planning of the trip with us instead of trying to make the issue more simple, she could have enjoyed the trip as much as we did.
Another point made, is that it is important not to overgeneralize an issue. it is very easy for people to sometimes assume that their facts are always true. For example, assuming that all American teenagers have children before the age of 18 is completely untrue and is called overgeneralizing. It is therefore very important not to do that and to make sure that one's point is actually based on actual facts and data. Lastly, it says to avoid making false assumptions. False assumptions tend to happen when there is a lack of communication between people; it is therefore important for people to keep all communications open and keep an open mind while discussing an issue.
I chose to talk about this specific concept the book brought up because I found it to be really important. It is really easy to lack communication in a group and these four points are great points to avoid this issue from happening between group members.