Elizabeth Nardi

Argument Assignment
Critical Reasoning
4-14-2014
General Motors: Public Relations Issues
General Motors is currently having a lot of problems with not only their cars, but the
public who once adored them. A top of the market brand name alongside Ford, Chevy, and
Toyota, just recalled a bunch of cars that is estimated to cost them around 300 million dollars in
repairs and not to mention the law suits that are likely to follow. General Motors has been
accused of not recalling the cars sooner due to ignition key problems causing air bags and other
safety functions to not work well driving and in an accident. This has caused serious Public
Relation Problems due to the fact that they did not inform people of the car issue and just let it go
until there were multiple deaths. The problem with the ignition part has been estimated to cost
about fifty cents to fix, which is why the public is baffled on how they did not just fix the
problem when it first happened (Isidore, 2014). General Motors is now, owning up to the fact
that they have known about this problem for some time now. This is the first step in fixing a
current problem for the company in the public relations department. General Motors has a long
way to go in repairing its reputation, but they are now on the road to recovery.
First Argument Type: Categorical Syllogism: A Simple Deductive Argument
Situation: There are many situations that come up in Public Relations. It normally plays roles in
everyday businesses by helping inform different publics on what the business is up to, doing in
the future or its newest plans. Normally you hear about it the most when a company messes up
and has to own up to the mistake they made or problem they are having. In current news, General

Motors is having a lot of Public Relation issues due to the fact that they lied about a problem
with their cars and multiple lives were cut short because of it. General Motors has always been a
reputable business when it came to car manufactures. Although even big companies like General
Motors face problems and whether or not they handle it the right way decides if the external
public will react in a negative or positive way. Therefore, even large car manufactures with a ton
of public support can come across a problem that causes them to have serious public relation
issues.
Argument:
All car manufactures are reputable businesses.
Some reputable businesses come across problems which cause serious public relations issues.
Some car manufactures have serious public relation issues.
Venn Diagrams:
A.

Car
Manufacturers

Reputable Businesses

Reputable
Businesses

I.

*
Reputable
Businesses

Public Relations
Issues

Car Manufactures
I.

*
Car
Manufactures

Public Relation
Issues

Public Relation Issues

Valid Argument

This argument type fits this situation because it is easy to show the relationship between
the three different categories along with demonstrate whether or not it is all of one category or
only a few. This situation was trying to persuade the external public that not all but some car
manufactures have Publics Relation issues and by showing it in the graphic form it is easy to
understand and validate. The Venn Diagrams make it easy to compare the different components
of the argument which is why this form worked the best.
This is a good argument according to the standards presented in class because it follows
all the rules. The first premise is an A, which means it is universally affirmative. This means it is
everything in the category and it is positive. In the Venn diagram you shade the left side of the
two circles. The second premise and the conclusion are Is, which mean they are both particular
affirmative. This means that there is at least one thing in the category that is both. In this case
you would put asterisks in the middle. Then to find that it was valid you must take the three
circles Venn Diagram and place the shading or asterisks from the premises, then see if the
conclusion matches that section on the three circled Venn Diagram (Munson & Black, 2012). In
this argument, they match therefore, it is valid.
This form of argument and the argument itself is important to my major because it is
dealing with Public Relations and the issues they can face with major companies. This form is
related because throughout public relations you could be dealing with different groups of people,
companies or even products that you have to compare and make an argument for. By knowing
this form and how to use it you can create a valid argument out of most situations that will help
you persuade people in the public relation line of work.
Second Argument Type: Sentential Argument: A Complex Deductive Argument

Situation: General Motors is a reputable business that has had a great past in designing, creating
and selling cars. Even with its Public Relation issues, they still make cars that are top of the
market in quality and innovation. When consumers compare vehicles between two different
manufactures they will always want the best quality and a certain price. If the consumer looks at
the competition, such as Ford, they will easily find that Ford has lower quality vehicles at a
higher price. Therefore, consumers should buy General Motors vehicles instead of the
competitions.
Argument:
1. A consumer has a choice to buy a from two car manufactures, either Ford or General
Motors.
2. If they buy a Ford then they will get a bad car that will need a lot of work.
3. They cannot, however, get a bad car that will need a lot of work and a good car that is a
quality vehicle.
4. The consumer always wants the quality vehicle.
5. Therefore, the consumer should buy a General Motors vehicle.
Sentential Form:
FvG
FB
~(BC)
Q
_
G

1. F v G
2. FB
3. ~(BQ)
4. Q
5. ~B v ~Q
6. ~B
7. ~F
8. G

3 De Morgans Rule
4,5 Disjunctive Syllogism
2,6 Modus Tollens
1,7 Disjunctive Syllogism

Valid Argument

This argument is appropriate for the situation, because you are not getting all the
information you need in order to find out if it is successful. You must use the inference rules of
arguments in order to find out if it is valid or invalid. By using sentential form is makes it easier
to see where you need to add rules in order to come up with a valid argument. In the situations
case, in order to get to buy a general motors vehicle, you must go through the process and
eliminate the Ford vehicle and explain why the consumer chose a General Motors vehicle over

the Ford. By using De Morgans Rule, the Disjunctive Syllogism, and Modus Tollens you are
able to finally get to the conclusion of buying a General Motors vehicle instead of the Ford.
The argument is a good argument according to the standards presented in class because it
follows the rules in order to be valid. First, the argument was set up as if it were a simple
argument in sentential form which is where each type of sentence has one or two letters. For
example and if, then statement is called implication and it is symbolized by an arrow in between
two letters that represent a word on both sides. Then to add the inference rules, you had to look at
all of the different valid argument forms. You then would take one area of the argument and
figure out which parts were missing until you had a completed argument (Munson & Black,
2012). Since this argument was missing crucial steps in the premises because they were inferred,
you had to do this in order to find out if it was a valid argument.
This form of an argument will be important in my major because throughout school and
peoples conversations a lot of items are just inferred. You need to be able to take what they said
and fill in the pieces or as people have been taught before, read between the lines. I will need to
be able to take an argument and add in what others may be missing in order to come to a valid
conclusion just like this argument form and the inference rules that go with it.
Third Argument Type: Statistical Syllogism: A Simple Non-Deductive Argument
Situation: General Motors is having problems with a part in the ignition key area. This has
caused over ten deaths so far due to fatal accidents and safety features being turned off. With
these facts many people are angry that General Motors did not fix the problem. Many people do
not want to buy cars from General Motors because they are either scared of the problem or they
are angry at how they handled it. Therefore, a customer will probably not want to a car from
General Motors after this incident.

Argument:
Many people do not want to buy a car from General Motors after this incident.
I want to buy a car.
I will probably not buy a car from General Motors because of this incident.
Successful
This argument is appropriate for the situation because it fits the non-deductive structure
of statistical syllogism. This is when the statistics are not an exact number so the conclusion may
be probable but cannot be exactly known because there is not an exact amount. When words such
as some or many are used in the argument it means that it is non-deductive. According to the
argument many people do not want to buy a car because of a certain incident. Therefore I will
probably not get a car for General Motors because I might fit in the category of the many people
that do not want to buy a car form them right now. It is not exactly known though because I
could possibly still buy a car from them. Since there is this uncertainty but it is still an argument
that could be true, is why I used this form.
The argument is a good argument according to the standards presented in class because it
has a high probability of being true due to the statistics of many people disliking general motors
and not wanting to buy from them. According to class notes and the book, due to the probability
that the argument of not buying a General Motors car, makes the argument successful even
though we do not know for sure that it is the outcome (Munson & Black, 2012).
This form of argument is important to my major because throughout school or in a job I
may not get exact information or statistics in order to get a for sure answer. By using this
argument I can generate an answer based on what will probably happen. This is similar to the
inference section because I will have to read in between the lines and find the most probable
answer in order to get a successful argument that makes sense to others.

References
Isidore, C. (2014, March 20). GM's Recall Cost: $300 Million and counting. Retrieved from
CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/20/news/companies/gm-recallcosts/index.html
Munson, R., & Black, A. (2012). The Elements of Reasoning (Sixth ed.). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth.