Youth & Smoking

Dr. Novello uses cause-and-effect inductive reasoning when she explains how the number of teens and children who smoked "increased dramatically" once Joe Camel ads for Camel cigarettes were first introduced in 1988. The effect she states was the increase in the number of teen and child smokers, which was caused by Joe Camel ads for Camel cigarettes. This simply concludes that the ads managed to market towards teens and children enough to where it caused a dramatic increase in teen and child smokers. She uses this cause-and-effect inductive reasoning to come to a solution to the issue. Because the ads had done so much damage, Dr. Novello worked to ban cigarette ads that targeted youth. She targeted down on the cause and changed the effect. From a basic knowledge of what I have learned about the history of youth smokers, I know that the ban of those ads caused a decrease in number of youth smokers. So Dr. Novello’s use of cause-and-effect inductive reasoning was successful.

Inductive Arguments

An inductive argument that I found myself dealing with went as follows:
My friends and I were going to see the movie Big Miracle until we heard that the movie was targeted for children, where as Safe House (a rated R movie) was more acceptable for college students. We decided to that we would probably enjoy seeing the movie Chronicle more, seeing as we are college students.
The two premises were (1) My friends and I were going to see the movie Big Miracle, (2) the movie was targeted for children, and (3) Safe House (a rated R movie) was more acceptable for college students. The conclusion was that we would probably enjoy seeing the movie Safe House more. This is an inductive argument because premises 3 is a generalization about a population, college students, where we would be categorized. We drew a conclusion that, begin as we are college students, we would probably like Safe House over a children's movie. It is also an inductive argument because it suggests that the conclusion probably follows the premises when I used included the indicator word "probably".

Types of Leadership

In The Essential Guide to Group Communication reading, the chapter discusses types of leadership. They are authoritarian, consultative, participation, and laissez-faire. The authoritarian leadership is mainly controled by a leader with little or no input by other group members. Consultative leadership promotes collaboration of ideas between group members. Participative leadership usually guides and facilitates groups, but no other involvement. Lastly, the laissez-faire leadership is as if there is no actual leader and the group proceeds with the task with no assistance from this "leader". I personally believe I am an participative leader because I do not like when a group is unorganized and lacking a foundation. I am usually not the one to give in the most input or find the solution to the problem, but I help guide the rest of the group through the task. Like when working with my assigned political party group in a Civics class, I helped the group organize into the different jobs and informed them of which task they were to complete and bring back to me.

Lawfull

If we perform an unlawful punishment on the convict, then we are in violation of human dignity. We are not performing an unlawful punishment on the convict. Therefore, we are not in violation of human dignity. In Ernest van den Haag's argument, he discusses how the death penalty does not "legitimize the unlawful imposition of identical unpleasantness". Van den Haag points out the difference between a crime, such as kidnapping or murder, and execution, is that the first is "unlawful and undeserved" while the second is "lawful and deserved punishment for an unlawful act". The scriptural passage that Sister Helen Prejean quotes does not prohibit the usage of the death penalty. She mentions Jesus of Nazareth saying, "...not to return hate for hate..," and while all this is true, in contrary, we are not returning hate because the same crime is not being returned or done upon the convict. Just as when a teen is given expulsion for seriously harming another kid, the kid does not hurt the troubled teen in return.

Fact or Fiction

When Sherlock Holmes is explaining to Watson that "when it comes to the art of reasoning, many people rely on opinion and unsupported assumption", he is saying that many people believe that their own knowledge, built up from rumors or poorly constructed conclusions, is true. He emphasizes the difficulty to "detach the framework" of facts from assumptions. Being a woman having gone through high school and middle school, I am well aware of this issue. Most recently, I asked a close friend of mine what her boyfriend’s sister was like. I almost immediately got a negative response. My friend described her as vulgar, sleazy, and conniving. She had minimal evidence to back her up, so I had a difficult time being convinced. Upon meeting her boyfriend’s sister, I could assume that she was not a very nice person from what my friend had informed me, or I could conclude for myself what kind of person she really is. Until then, I do not have an official opinion of her. It would not be fair to just believe what my friend had to say about her, just because my friend believed it to be true.

Group Roles

In our reading in the Small Group Communication book, the authors go into detail about how there are roles that people play in groups. They describe a person's role at "the function that member performs in the group". The authors explained how there are two roles each member performs. The first are task roles, which are the information giver, information seeker, elaborator, initiator, and the administrator. As for my self, I am an initiator because I always feel that I am placed in a group that never wants to get the project going and I am always having to jump-start and organized the group. The second roles are the personal, which can be either the harmonizer, gatekeeper or sensor. These roles deal with the "relationship" between group members and are not task related. Reading over each role, I see myself as the gatekeeper. This member makes sure that communication is open for all members, and may even "restrict information" if need be. I am always the one to make sure everyone has an input, by either having us go around in a circle and speak up, or asking directly. What roles might you play in a group setting?

Standing My Ground

While spending time with my friend Racheal, another friend and I expressed to her how we felt about her current boyfriend. My friend spoke first by saying how she adores them as a couple, and felt that he is a really nice guy. These comments made Racheal feel really good, and she was glad that my other friend had approved of him. Then when my turn came around, I knew I could not say the same. There was a moment when I thought that I should keep my opinion to myself, but alas I could not sit there and lie to her. I knew that if I communicated it to her correctly and sincerely, she will not be too offended. I had to make sure the words I used were not insulting or attacking. In short I stated to her that I did not like him, that he did not treat her well, and that I felt in a few months, she would find a new guy who will sweep her off her feet. I laid my opinion out in the open and I stood my ground, knowing I could possibly risk damaging or losing our friendship. Little did I know, she ended up valuing my opinion and was curious to how I came to that conclusion. She seemed to dismiss the nicer comments made by my other friend, and respectively focused on where I was coming from. Racheal did not seem the slightest bit mad or upset, and she thanked me for me honesty. The critical thinking skills did help me stand firm in that I was able to analyze how to communicate to her correctly what I wanted to say, and taking into considering what she might say or how it sounded to her.