Chapter 6
Question 1
There was one occasion when I made my opinion quite quick, without evaluating the evidence. It was about the news of the war in Syria. I was watching the most popular international news channels, and they were broadcasting people in Syria. According to them, people were complaining about their government. It was at the beginning of the war. The news conductor who was there in Syria said that they were complaining about their government and wanted a change. They showed images of people on the streets with pamphlets and flags singing songs. Of course, I could not understand, but I quickly judged them unfairly, thinking they deserved the war because they asked for it.
I should have evaluated the evidence. At least I should have tried to make sure what they were really saying. I did not know the language and so I could not understand their songs, pamphlets, etc. Later on, I learned that they were not complaining about the government. They were peacefully going to the streets to express their desire that they rather have that government than to give the power to the rebels who wanted to overtake the government.
Of course, I did not know that when I made my mind about it. I trusted the news channel was telling the truth.
I realized I should have carefully evaluated all the evidence including the validity of what the news channel was broadcasting. News channels are businesses and they sell more of certain news, such as wars and strikes. No one should trust 100% in what they say as they can be influenced by money, rating, power, popularity, etc.
Finally, eyewitness and unpublished reports are necessary. I have a friend who lives there, and I got in touch with her, and she explained to me what was happening and how upset they were when they watched the TV news and they saw themselves on the streets complaining about one thing, and the TV channel in English saying something different. It was confirmed to me when someone I know told me similar the same thing.
Chapter 7
Question 3
If I were the FBI agent, I would have answered that the poster of the Hispanic male was a description of an ethnic group, as it could have been Asian, or Black, or White. I would have also said that the purpose of the poster is to find the perpetrator. If he broke the law and evidence says his description is of a Hispanic male, it is necessary to be specific in his description i.e. Hispanic Male. For example, if the criminal was black, then it would be necessary to describe him as black. It would be wrong not to say it simply because “black” could be also used for discrimination in another circumstance. Furthermore, it would be negligent not to describe properly the ethnic group, as it would but the lives of civilians in risk.
Finally, and most importantly, I would have said that it would be discrimination if and only if, it would have implied that all criminals are Hispanic. That would have been a generalization involving discrimination.
Chapter 9
Question 1
1. Assuming that they get real money and that the strike is for money, is a warrant assumption that each phenomenon has a single cause (Ruggiero, 2012). The strike could be for another reason.
2. A warrant assumption can be that the more convinced we are about an idea we are more right about it. Just because Janice thinks a movie about lesbians is not a quality movie does not make it true. She has no valid evidence to say the movie has no quality, except her idea of lesbians.
3. In this case, there are several warranted assumptions. First the fact that people’s senses are always trustworthy (Ruggiero, 2012). Helen might not have heard well, and there might have been incorrect details in the passing the information to each other. Secondly, one event does not necessarily follow another. Having marital problems does not mean a guaranteed separation. It can mean they want to improve or solve problems.
Chapter 10
Question 8
Stuart is overgeneralizing about one single case he knew. He is also jumping to conclusions based on that single case, basing his argument on the fact that a result follows a sole cause. Not only Stuart is biased about his evidence, but his reasoning is also incorrect.
He is generalizing based on a single case, and without having all the evidence, he is jumping to conclusions (Ruggiero, 2012). Furthermore, he was a child when that happened, and he was influenced by the perception he had at that time.
Ultimately Ramona is not even proposing that their son should be working all day and doing all the chores in the house, just that he could have certain duties.
References
Ruggiero, V.R. (2012). Beyond Feelings, A Guide to Critical Thinking. Mc Graw Hill.
