Last Blog

I've learned a lot from this course, blogging among them.  I'm really glad I took this course, especially because of its usefulness for entrance exams to Law School.  I think logic also teaches you to think in a different way, and to analyze problems from a different angle.  I definitely think one could teach multiple levels of logic;  I would say it would take more than just a few semester classes to start running short on content.  Overall, this course was my most challenging class, and I'm glad I'm taking it... it's not over yet!  Definitely glad we are trying to put together a final review session.

"Just four months after a Florida jury acquitted Casey Anthony of murdering her daughter, one of the prosecutors has released a ghostwritten book called “Imperfect Justice.’’ This is the way the justice system works in the most spectacular cases: there is the legal phase, and there is the cash-in phase, and sometimes the two are concurrent. But it’s too easy to confuse stunning TV “gotcha’’ moments with a clear path to conviction. No one should count on the courts for emotional satisfaction."
-Joanna Weiss 20 Nov. 2011


I think Weiss' point about denouncing the court system through emotional satisfaction commits the red herring fallacy.  While she does make a valid point discussing the concurrency of the legal and cash-in phase, she then concludes that "no one should count on the courts for emotional satisfaction."  Besides the fact that the premise right before begins to deviate from the original argument, I think that a basic knowledge of our justice system would state that a main purpose of due process in court is to avoid such emotional, and possibly rash, unjust decisions.  

Re “Questions About the Safety of Fracking” (letters, Nov. 9):

Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, does not mention the economic benefits of natural gas development in regions long plagued by widespread unemployment. As a result of investments in safe shale gas technology by natural gas companies, people are working and communities are again thriving. Repeated tests have shown that hydraulic fracturing in thousands of wells protects water supplies, and state and federal tests have found no groundwater contamination.

Mr. Hinchey would have us believe that because the federal government doesn’t regulate it, there is lax regulation of hydraulic fracturing — or none. Hydraulic fracturing operations are indeed rigorously regulated by states, which are best equipped to regulate because hydrologic and geologic conditions vary greatly from state to state, making a nationwide system unworkable.

Shale producers have a commitment to the environment and the communities in which they operate. They’ve adopted numerous industrywide standards to ensure safe and clean operations, as well as programs such as FracFocus.org, a Web site about fracking that lists the components of hydraulic fracturing fluids on a well-by-well basis.

JACK N. GERARD
President and Chief Executive
American Petroleum Institute
Washington, Nov. 9, 2011

This letter to the editor, surprisingly by the President and Chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, answers the questions raised by a November 9th article, "Questions About the Safety of Fracking," by Maurice Hinchey.  In order to really see the fallacies here, you should click on the link of the article by Hinchey and read that as well.  In summary, I think, as well written as Gerard's response is, it commits the straw person fallacy by not really answering the right question.  In response to the main concern of Hinchey, which is API's resistance to environmentally friendly legislation, Gerard mainly focuses on the economic benefits of fracking, and the jobs it is creating.  Gerald does mention safety in the last paragraph, specifically the website that lists the components of fluids in the fracking, well by well, but simply listing what chemicals are entering the earth aren't exactly taking safety precautions.  Having lived in a huge marcellus shale region in Pennsylvania, I can attest to the environmental dangers of fracking.  For example, while there may be regulations, large, billion dollar companies will simply pay the fine for safety infractions, rather than change their equipment/buy better, safer, and more expensive equipment.  As far as drinking water safety goes, which Hinchey mentions, some water in central PA is undrinkable because of chemicals leaking into the water; some water is even flammable.  These environmental issues are vaguely answered at best by Gerald.  The article focuses on the positive economic benefits, and does not answer the concerns raised by Hinchey.

"After reading about low expectations for a high school diploma and limiting homework, I am concerned that we are becoming a soft, wimpy, mediocre society."


This assertion is from a letter to the editor, entitled, "The Quality of Homework," (NYTimes, 31 Oct. 2011).  While the letter provided some fairly strong evidence that the high school education of our country is lacking, I think concluding that this makes our society, "soft, wimpy," and, "mediocre," is too emotive, among all else, and commits the fallacy of false cause.  The connection between loosening educational standards has no direct and certain relation to a soft, wimpy, and mediocre society.  One can even question the ambiguity of what he means by soft, and wimpy.  I think that perhaps using the term mediocre might be justified, especially if it were relative to the academic performance and production per worker in other competitive countries.  However, the conclusion in all is weakly correlated with the premise and, in my opinion, fallacious.

"It’s time that we as a nation accepted a basic — and seldom-mentioned — fact. You don’t need a degree (and certainly not an M.B.A.) to start a business and create jobs, nor is it even that helpful, compared with cheaper, faster alternatives.

If I were betting on the engines of future job creation, I wouldn’t put my money on college students cramming for tests and writing papers with properly formatted M.L.A.-style citations in order to bolster their résumés for careers in traditional professions and middle-management jobs in large corporate and government bureaucracies.

I’d put my money on the kids who are dropping out of college to start new businesses. If we want to get out of the jobs mess we’re in, we should hope that more will follow in their footsteps."

I think this article in the NY Times, entitled, "Will Dropout Save America?" by Michael Ellsberg (10/22/2011)  commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization.  It is true that some dropouts have become incredible and successful pioneers (Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg, ect.)  However, basing an argument on the fact that college degrees are no longer effective and that we should rely on the populous of dropouts to save our economy is a sweeping generalization only justified by the few geniuses (specific cases) that actually knew what they were doing upon dropping out.

Below is my phase three argument, in simplified and standard form:

P:  Academically speaking, one's GPA and LSAT are the two most important statistics when looking into law school.

P:  The GPA of a graduating student cannot be compared fairly (in a relative sense) with that of a student from a  different school.

P:  The LSAT is not arbitrarily unfair.

P:   GPA is not as reliable an indicator of competency as the LSAT.
P:  Success in the first year of law school directly correlates with success on the LSAT's.

---------------------
C:  The way law school admissions currently treat an applicant’s LSAT scores are completely warranted.

The LSAT is a comprehensive test that most applicants to law school take.  Similar to the SAT’s, the LSAT’s are a standardized and nationwide test, and part of the admissions process.  There are some people who think that this test is over emphasized, however the way law school admissions currently treat an applicant’s LSAT scores are completely warranted.  The LSAT’s, along with GPA and extracurriculars, are all factors considered in a potential candidate.  A student’s LSAT score should be the highest regarded part of this process.

Premises:

1)       The GPA of a graduating student can not be compared fairly with that of a student from a different school. [common knowledge]

a.       There are hundreds of different types of colleges and universities in the United States, and the world.

b.      Each institution designs its own unique curriculum.

c.       Each curriculum is constructed of courses run and taught by different professors.

2)       The LSAT is not arbitrarily unfair. [sourced]

a.       Studies show preparation time directly correlates with success.

b.      The average scores span less than 15 points between 28 different majors.

3)       Success in the first year of law school directly correlates between success on the LSAT’s. [sourced]

a.       Students who perform better on the LSATs on average had higher grades in his or her first year of school.

b.      Undergraduate GPA had a much weaker correlation to first year law school success.

4)       GPA is not as reliable an indicator of competency as the LSAT [common knowledge]

a.       All LSAT’s are comprehensive (multiple sections, writing, multiple choice)

b.      All LSAT’s given out at one particular time are the same, and scored the same.

c.       The test graders of the LSAT use a predetermined curve.

d.      GPA can be affected by grade inflation.

e.      Not all Institutions and/or professors have the same definition of an A.

f.        GPA can be affected by the curve, although some curves can be influenced by peers.

This is my tentative thesis statement and premises for my paper this semester.  I definitely think that it needs some more work, and maybe a few more premises to solidify the structure of the argument.  Any advice or comments are welcome!

L&CR: Argument Analysis (3)

For the sake of national security, this country cannot afford to retreat from the world. Its investment in the State Department and foreign aid helps advance peace and stability by feeding starving people, providing access to doctors and medicines, opening new markets, promoting democracy, curbing nuclear arms and strengthening allies with military and economic assistance. It also gives Washington leverage.


P1:  Its [United States] investment in the State Dept. & foreign aid advances peace & stability.
P2:  Investments provide access to new markets of doctors and medicines.
P3:  [implied:  the U.S. healthcare system is not efficient and needs some form of change/help]
P3:  It promotes democracy and curbs nuclear arms possession.
P4:  It gives the U.S. military and economic assistance, and leverage.
P5:  [implied:  the U.S. could use this help because of our spread out military as a result of the war on terror, the financial help as result of our massive deficit, and the leverage, as a result of falling out of favor with other countries due to military actions of the past decade.
 ______________
C:  This country [U.S.] cannot afford to retreat from the world.


This article was taken from an editorial in the New York Times, entitled, "No Time To Get Stingy," by Carlos Giacomo (10/08/2011).  I think this is a good example of a strong and fairly cogent inductive argument with several implied facts to help solidify the structure of the argument.  Anyone reading this editorial would have basic knowledge of our nation's foreign affairs, and current policy issues.  While the country seems divided on many issues today, especially in congress, both republicans and democrats will acknowledge that our heath care system needs some kind of change, our economy needs help, and any leverage and favor with allied countries is definitely something that is not overly abundant these days.  I think that public policy editorials are one of the most difficult venues for appearing unbiased, however, by pointing out problems and appealing for help instead of recommending an action, Giacomo does a fairly good job of presenting a moderate and generally acceptable article.

L&CR: Argument Analysis (2)

""The most hopeful sign is that nearly 40 percent of the teachers who got off to a poor start managed to improve, thanks to extra help. Some who started out as poor performers were rated as “strong” or “effective” by year’s end. This shows that good teaching can indeed be taught, and that with genuine effort school systems can upgrade the teacher corps in a fairly short period of time.""


P1:  Nearly 40% of teachers who got off to poor start [teaching] managed to improve, thanks to extra   help.
P2:  Some who started out as poor were rated as "strong" or "effective" by the year's end.
-----------
C:  Good teaching can indeed be taught.  


This article was an editorial from the New York Times on a New Haven's school district attempt to critique and constructively criticize their staff.  These evaluations were done by district officials to keep the strong teachers sharp and the weaker ones either out or improved by the end of the year.  I thought that despite of the statistic in the first premise, since there was no other to build on, that this was a strong and cogent inductive argument.  The article explains that of all the teachers evaluated, the ones in danger of loosing their jobs were notified, and nearly half of them improved to be much more effective.


"New Haven's Teacher Improvement Plan." Www.nytimes.com. 25 Sept. 2011. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com>.

L&CR: Argument Analysis

"Unemployment has been stuck around 9 percent for more than two years. Business is treading water. Families have less cash to spend. Markets are in turmoil. All our old anxieties have us by the throat again: the American Dream is dead; the middle class is disappearing; our children won’t live as well as we do. "


P1:  Unemployment has been stuck around 9 percent for more than two years.
P2:  [Because of this same recession] Business is treading water.
P3:  [Because of unemployment rates]  Families have less cash to spend. [widening the upper &        lower class rift]
C1:  The middle class is disappearing.


This was an excerpt from an editorial in the New York Times written by Sylvia Nasar (9-17-2011) discussing the ways the public views John Maynard Keynes (pioneer in macro economics).  While certain parts of the article do appear to be either opinionated or a statement of belief, she includes certain facts that cannot be disputed (P1), and forms her statements by at least claiming them to be true, therefore making them premises.  These premises I included would differ from the other parts of the paragraph, such as "the American Dream," and how markets are in "turmoil," because I felt these were more opinionated points and subjective to the eyes of the beholder, and only thrown in to make the writers message more pertinent.  For this reason I would say this is a somewhat strong, inductive argument, although more likely to be uncogent.


Nasar, Sylvia. "Keynes: The Sunny Economist." Www.nytimes.com. The New York Times Company, 17 Sept. 2011. Web. 18 Sept. 2011. < http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/opinion/sunday/john-maynard-keynes-his-sunny-optimism-shaped-economists-approach-to-depression.html?ref=opinion >