Comm 104 Exam 3 Study Guide PDF

Preview

Summary

Exam 3 study guide for Comm 104...

Description

Comm 104: Atkinson Comm 104 Exam 3 Study Guide (WVU) Key Terms: ● Inductive Reasoning o Bottom Up approach o Specific Case o If all premises are true, then the conclusion is MOST LIKELY true o Harold is a grandfather, Harold is bald. ▪ Conclusion: All grandfathers are bald ● Deductive Reasoning o Top Down approach o Specific case o If premises are true, conclusion MUST be true o All men are mortal. Harold is a man. ▪ Conclusion: Harold is mortal ● Deductively Valid o It is impossible for the premises to be true at the same time that the conclusion is false ▪ Guarantee: if the premises are true, so is the conclusion ● Central Route Thinking o Involves processing messages carefully and effort fully o Produce more thoughts about the message and thoughts that are relevant to the message ● Peripheral Route Thinking o Assumes humans are cognitive misers o Involves processing messages superficially and lazily o Fewer thoughts about the message and thoughts are irrelevant ● Cognitive Miser o There are limitations to our mental resources and abilities ● Cognitive Heuristics o Natural human decision making shortcuts that we use to speed up our decisions about what to believe or what to do ● Ethics o IS socially structured o Moral principles that govern a person’s or group’s behavior ● Moral Ethics o Rhetorical communication has ethical value o Only good people should be allowed to speak or be fully trained in rhetorical communication ● Amoral Ethics o Rhetorical communication has no ethical value itself ● Coercion o Using force or punishment to get something you desire

Key Concepts to Understand:

Comm 104: Atkinson

●

● What are the four questions to ask about your sample when evaluating inductive generalization? 1. Was the correct group sampled? 2. Was the data obtained in an effective way? 3. Were enough cases considered? 4. Was the sample representatively structured? ● 3 Types of relationships between variables o Coincidences: ▪ When two or more events occur together by chance o Correlations: ▪ When two more events occur together several times o Causes: ▪ When two or more events occur together and the earlier event influences the later one ● Common Inductive Fallacies o Erroneous Generalization ▪ Generalization based on too little information ▪ Ex: Ive met two people from Kentucky, they like to quiz people ● All people from KY like to quiz people o Playing with Numbers ▪ Misapplying statistical tests ▪ Exaggerating small numbers ▪ EX: 80% of all students on campus drink..but the source didn’t mention that they only asked 20 people o False Dilemma ▪ Assuming incorrectly that all options are bad options ▪ Ex: If I don’t study, I will do poorly on the test. ● But if I study, I may over study and be too burnt out o Gamblers Fallacy ▪ Improperly connecting events that happened due to chance ▪ Ex: If I flip a coin 9 times and it was tails every time, what will I flip again? ● I wear my lucky jersey = my team wins o False Cause ▪ Assuming that if B happens right after A, A must cause B ▪ Ex: I aced my math test after I ate pizza for breakfast. ● I passed my math test by eating that slice of pizza o Slipper Slope ▪ Assuming that an event is automatically the start of a long chain of events ▪ Ex: If you skip class, you will not be able to catch up with work/notes, and you will fail at college and then life The 7 deductive Reasoning Template o About declarative statements o Denying the consequent ▪ Premise #1: If A, then B

Comm 104: Atkinson Premise #2: NOT B Conclusion: therefore, not A ● Ex: If yesterday was Friday, then today is Saturday. (If A then B) o But today is not Saturday (not B), therefore yesterday could not of been Friday (not A) o Affirming the Antecedent ▪ Premise #1: If A, then B ▪ Premise #2: A ▪ Conclusion: therefore, B ● Ex: If you go the speed limit on the highway then you should not get a speeding ticket (If A, then B) o You go the speed limit (A), you do not get a speeding ticket (B) o Disjunctive Syllogism ▪ Premise #1: Either A or B ▪ Premise #2: Not A ▪ Conclusion: Therefore B ● Ex: Saturday night I’ll either stay in or go to a concert (A or B) o Not going to stay home (not A) therefore, I’ll go to the concert (B) o Applying Generalization ▪ Premise #1: every member of F is a member of g ▪ Premise #2: Individual case X is a member of F ▪ Conclusion: so, X is a member of G ● Ex: Everyone who plays football runs risk of injury o Andrew Luck plays football o Andrew Luck runs risk of getting injured o Applying the Exception ▪ Premise #1: every member of F is a member of G ▪ Premise #2: Individual case X is not a member of G ▪ Conclusion: so X is not a member of F ● Ex: Every member of the avengers is a superhero o President Gee is not a superhero o So, President Gee is not a member of the Avengers o Transitivity ▪ If X has a relationship with Y and Y has the same relationship with to Z, then X has that transitive relationship to Z o Reflexivity Relationship ▪ Two objects relate to each other in the same way ● Common Deductive Fallacies ▪ ▪

o

Affirming the Consequent Fallacy ▪ If A is true, then B is true ▪ B is True, then A must be true ▪ But A may not be the only condition that brings about B.

Comm 104: Atkinson So, it doesn’t make sense to believe that A must be true simply because B is true ● Ex: If she rode a bike to school, then she will be out of breath. o She is out of breath, therefore she rode her bike to school ▪ Other activities could’ve influenced Denying the Antecedent ▪ If A is true, then B is true ▪ A is not true, then B is not true. ▪ A may not be the only condition that brings about B ● Ex: If I am in Morgantown, then I am in WV o I am not in Morgantown, therefore I am not in WV ▪ Could be in Huntington False Classification ▪ False assumption that if an individual case X is apart of group G, then it is automatically a part of subgroup F ● Ex: The police profiler said that the criminal was a white male age 25-35 with black hair. o The suspect is a white male, 28 years old with black hair ▪ This establishes that the suspect is the criminal ▪ (False) Fallacies of Division ▪ Occurs when we say what is true of the group is true of the individuals ● Ex: People can drink on streets of Las Vegas Strip o You are going to drink out on the street Fallacies of Compositiong ▪ Occurs when we say what is true of one part is true of the group ● Ex: If a runner runs faster, she can win the race o If all runners run faster, they can all win the race ▪

o

o

o

o

●

Four components of a rhetorical situation o Author ▪ Experiences and background views and beliefs o Audience ▪ Know your audience like you know yourself (Experience, values, etc.) ▪ Consider multiple audiences or subsets of your audience ▪ More complex but you can more effectively tailor your message o Purpose ▪ Both the writer and the audience need to know o Presentation ▪ Getting attention ▪ Passion, style mistakes, presentation, grammar, argumentation

● Elaboration Likelihood Model o Theory suggesting that there are two routes to attitude change: ▪ The central route, which focuses on thoughtful consideration of an argument for change ▪ The peripheral route, focuses on less careful, more emotional, and even superficial evaluation

Comm 104: Atkinson ● Moderators of the ELM o Motivation and ability High ▪ Central Route (usually uses argument) o Motivation and ability Low ▪ Peripheral Route (usually uses cues) ● Questions to consider ELM and Creating a message o Is the target audience likely to process centrally or peripherally? o Can you test it on a different group before you deliver> o Do you need the attitude change to stick or temporary? o Create arguments from you audiences point of view ● Advantages of Central Route Processing o Required for learning o Liberate us from others thinking and authority ● Advantages of Peripheral Route Processing o Uses just the right amount of energy (Saves it for when they need it) o Usually good enough for the purpose at hand ● Common Heuristics o Satisficing ▪ Having found an option that is good enough, we take it ▪ Ex: public speakers only include enough evidence to convince the audience o Temorizing ▪ A given option is good enough, for now ▪ Saves time, energy and money, but may not be enough for the future o Affect ▪ (go with your gut) based on initial reaction ▪ Advantage: Easy ▪ Disadvantage: not always right o Simulation ▪ Estimating the likelihood of a given outcome ▪ Advantage: increases our confidence ▪ Disadvantage: Estimations can be wrong o Availability ▪ Based on a vivid memory of past experience ▪ Advantage: Powerful, easier to recall something ▪ Disadvantage: Recall may not be accurate o Association ▪ Connecting ideas on the basis of the word association and memories, meanings, or impressions o Stereotyping ▪ Snap judgement about a group based on limited instance o Us Vs. Them ▪ Reducing decisions to 2 options and then rejecting the oppositions choice o Power Differential

Comm 104: Atkinson Accepting a position, belief, or solution because it is proposed by a high authority o Anchoring with Adjustment ▪ Picking an initial standpoint on an issue (Anchor) ▪ Changing (adjusting) relative to new evidence to form a final standpoint o Illusion Control ▪ Overestimating the control we have over situations o Optimistic Bias ▪ Underestimating our risk of experiencing a negative event o Elimination by Aspect ▪ Eliminating an option from consideration based upon lack of one desirable o Loss and Risk Aversion ▪ Avoiding risk and loss by maintaining the status quo ● Why intent is important to determining the ethics of a communication act o Unconscious = no judgement o Conscious = judge as either o Ethical or unethical, but how do you know which one? ▪ Use speakers intent towards audience ▪ Not the effect of the message ▪ Not their means of persuasion ▪

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

● Be sure to recognize different examples of the 7 deductive reasoning templates ● There will be a matching section on the Exam ● Be able to recognize the different common fallacies...