Hierarchy in Communication Channels

When relaying a message like that the president should wear a red tie to someone as prestigious as the President of the United States himself, one wouldn't expect to walk right up to him and tell him whatever it is you have to say. While reading Group Communication, chapter four explains how there are multiple channels when communicating. Two main types of communication channels are; formal and informal channels. Formal channels are paths of communication a message must go through in a professional way that includes a middleman. For example, if one wanted to get the red tie message to Obama they might give a secretary the message to be reviewed, approved, and sent on its way. Informal channels are paths of communication that usually get relayed through casual word of mouth, or rumor. For example, if Obama heard that one wanted to get him a message involving wearing a red tie, that would be informal because it didn’t get approved before he heard it.

Fallacies

Slippery slope fallacies are claims that use a simple statement or fact and turn it into something over the top, and for the most part untrue. For example, my mother will over exaggerates quite a bit. She will always elaborate the truth to get a strong point across. When I was in high school and didn't work I'd ask her for money here and there and she would always say, "If I give you twenty dollars now, where will it stop!?" This is a slippery slope fallacy because, number one I only wanted the money to go to the mall with my friends and two I was not going to be asking every single day all day. I knew that I would not be taking advantage of her, but she would always take one simple thing and turn it into something else. Slippery slope fallacies usually are used to get a point across in a strong way.

Complex Arguments for Analysis Exercise #1

Exercise on the Structure of Arguments

1. My neighbor should get rid of all the cars in his yard. People do not like living next door to such a mess. He never drives any of them. They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.

Is this an argument?

• Yes, this is an argument.

Structure of the argument:

• My neighbor should get rid of all the cars in his yard. 1
• People do not like living next door to such a mess. 2
• He never drives any of them. 3
• They all look old and beat up, 4
• and leak oil all over the place. 5
• It is bad for the neighborhood, 6
• and it will decrease property values. 7

Additional Premises?

• If the neighbor actually used the cars, it would be alright for him to keep them on his property. a
• Since he does not use the cars, then they should be sitting there. b
• Cars that leak oil are not good for the environment. c
• The environment should not be damaged by a car/cars that just sit and spill oil for no good reason. d
• The neighbor should not be allowed to have a bunch of cars in his yard that leak oil and harm the environment or that will decrease the value of other homes in there are. e

Sub argument:

• Claim 3 is supported by a and b
• Claim 5 is supported by c and d
• 4 & 6 do not have enough support to be considered evidence of why the neighbor should get rid of the cars in the yard.

Is this a good argument?

• Claim 7 would depend on what the neighborhood already looks like. If it's a really nice and well groomed area, then that would make sense that the cars in the yard would decrease the property value. If the area was across the street from a fast food restaurant and a gas station, that would not really decrease the property value much more. Since the argument is valid, and makes enough sense, it is a good argument.

I did find this exercise useful because sometimes it can confusing trying to figure out whether an argument is valid, strong, or good. By working out this exercise, I saw that there was a formula to figure out what the argument was. This way you can make connections easier and see what kind of argument it is. For me, concepts like these have very fine lines between the different types of arguments. It definitely helped to see a formula to figure it out.

Types of Leadership

Leadership is a very important part of communication. Many of us look to others to guide us through decision-making. There are however different kinds of leaders that exhibit four different kinds of decision-making styles: laissez-faire, participative, consultative, and authoritarian. Authoritative leaders do not take others opinions into consideration when making a decision. This type of leader doesn’t take as much time to make a decision, but the group members tend to be less satisfied with the decisions. Consultative leaders use a pretty fair approach to making a decision. For instance they do take the opinions of those in their group and then make a final decision his or herself. Consultative leaders don’t always take the opinions of those in their groups seriously though, and that’s where problems arise. With participative leadership style involve others in their group to help decide. This type of leader basically just guides the group members, but overall has no more power than anyone else. The communication level is high in this type of decision-making style and generally works really well. The laissez-faire type of decision-making style involves almost no leadership, sometimes even none. This type of leader tends to be under the radar and is hard to find when there needs to be guiding and a problem needs to be solved. All of these leadership styles have their positives and negatives, but regardless leadership is necessary to run a cooperative society.

Strong Vs. Valid Argument

There is one major difference between a valid argument and a strong argument. In a strong argument, the evidence is true and the conclusion can be false. An example of a strong argument would be to say that In order to drive a car legally in California, you must have a driver’s license, and therefore everyone who drives in California has a driver’s license. Although the evidence in this particular argument is true and can be proven, the conclusion does not have to be true. We all know that there are some people who drive illegally, but optimally everyone is legally driving. An example of a valid argument would be that smoking causes cancer, Jane smokes, and therefore Jane is going to get cancer. This argument is valid because there have been studies that have shown that smoking causes cancer. This does not necessarily mean that Jane will get cancer, but in a valid argument it can said that she will.

The Tests for an Argument to Be Good

For an argument to be valid it must pass these three tests; the premise must be true, the premise must be more plausible than the conclusion, and the argument must be valid and not ridiculous, as some arguments sometimes turn out. All of the tests stand on their own legs and each is very important to follow through with a valid argument. An example of this method could be the following; all doctors are smart, my neighbor Jim is a doctor, and there for Jim is smart. Does it pass the three tests for this argument to be valid? Let's see!

Does the argument have a premise that is plausible?

Yes, because to be a doctor you must go through several years of college and do well, one must be able to pass multiple state board tests, as well as do a lot of reading and memorization. All of this meaning that one must be intelligent to be a doctor.

Is the premise more probable than the conclusion?

Yes, the premise is that to be a doctor you must be smart, this is true because of all of the schooling, preparation, memorization, learning, and training a doctor must go through to become a doctor. It cannot be proven that my neighbor Jim is smart because he is a doctor, but doctors are smart people and this can be assumed that Jim is therefore smart as well.

Is the argument strong?

Yes, I think most would agree that doctors are smart because of all of the schooling they must go through. I also think most would agree that all of the tests and medical school can be grueling and one must be smart to pass all of the tests and receive a PhD.

Descriptive and Prescriptive Claims

Descriptive and prescriptive claims can be a little hard to understand especially when someone takes a stand on a certain situation. A descriptive claim is a way to tell how something is, to describe it. A prescriptive claim is a way to tell how something should be, to prescribe it. An example of a descriptive claim would be if Jan told Sally that she thought drinking and driving was negligent. Since Jan told Sally that the action of drinking and driving is negligent, it implies that it is wrong. If Jan were to say no one should drink and drive, it would be prescriptive. It still implies it's not a good choice, but this way it is something that should not be done, it's prescribed. I found this interesting because they are two different ways to show the way you feel about a certain things. With descriptive claims it can sometimes come off harsh to just put out a thought or feeling in such a general way. With prescriptive claims I feel that it's a better way to take a stand on a certain subject because you are saying the way something should be instead of just saying how it is.