0:00:02.380,0:00:06.604
We're right in the middle of[br]reconstruction. We did stage one last

0:00:06.604,0:00:11.485
week, cuz that's just close analysis. In[br]the previous section we did stage two,

0:00:11.485,0:00:16.746
which is to remove excess verbiage, and to[br]put the explicit premises and conclusion

0:00:16.746,0:00:21.690
into standard form. And this lecture is[br]going to focus on stage three, which is

0:00:21.690,0:00:27.078
the clarify the premises and to break them[br]up. Where it's possible without distorting

0:00:27.078,0:00:31.705
them. Let's start with step four, which is[br]to clarify the premises and the

0:00:31.705,0:00:37.375
conclusion, when it's needed. So we might[br]need to clarify them just in order to make

0:00:37.375,0:00:42.900
them easier to understand, or to make them[br]less likely to mislead, and all that

0:00:42.900,0:00:49.181
sounds pretty good. So let's try on this[br]example. It was hot today, so it'll

0:00:49.181,0:00:58.045
probably be hot tomorrow again. And we[br]need to clarify that. What exactly counts

0:00:58.045,0:01:04.742
as today? Is that, you know, the time when[br]there's daylight, or does it also include

0:01:04.742,0:01:10.482
night, even though night is not day? And[br]what exactly do we mean by hot? How hot

0:01:10.482,0:01:15.780
was it today, and how hot will it be[br]tomorrow? And what, after all, is heat?

0:01:15.780,0:01:20.444
And what about, it'll probably be hot[br]tomorrow? Probability. That's a tough

0:01:20.444,0:01:25.492
notion. We're going to spend a whole week[br]on that later on in the course. And there

0:01:25.492,0:01:30.284
are different kinds of probability, and I[br]want to know what kind you're talking

0:01:30.284,0:01:35.268
about here. And when you ask for example,[br]about it will be hot tomorrow, what is,

0:01:35.268,0:01:40.252
what does will mean? It means it's going[br]to happen in the future, and what exactly

0:01:40.252,0:01:45.364
is the future? And is the future real? Is[br]time real? You can go a long way towards

0:01:45.364,0:01:50.761
asking how to clarify that argument. But[br]that's ridiculous, you know. We don't have

0:01:50.761,0:01:56.498
to clarify a simple argument like it was[br]hot today so it will probably be hot

0:01:56.498,0:02:01.583
tomorrow. And it's lucky we don't have to[br]clarify every word in the argument because

0:02:01.583,0:02:05.948
we couldn't because after all when you[br]explain one of the words or give a

0:02:05.948,0:02:10.726
definition for it, it's going to be in[br]terms of other words and then they have to

0:02:10.726,0:02:15.209
get clarified and you'll never going to[br]get to the end of it. The search for

0:02:15.209,0:02:19.928
perfect clarity and absolute precision is[br]impossible. You'll never complete that

0:02:19.928,0:02:24.805
search. You'll never find perfect clarity[br]or absolute precision, so give it up. What

0:02:24.805,0:02:29.975
we should seek is not absolute precision,[br]but adequate precision. Not absolute

0:02:29.975,0:02:35.077
clarity, but adequate clarity. And that[br]means that we ought to try to clear up

0:02:35.077,0:02:40.448
those parts of the premises and conclusion[br]that are likely to produce confusion

0:02:40.448,0:02:45.819
later. And you have to be able to kind of[br]predict whether this part of the argument

0:02:45.819,0:02:50.961
needs to be clarified, because people are[br]going to get confused by it. Now that's

0:02:50.961,0:02:56.069
not going to be easy, and there's no[br]simple or mechanical rule to tell you what

0:02:56.069,0:03:00.725
needs to be clarified, and what doesn't[br]need to be clarified. The only way to

0:03:00.725,0:03:06.028
learn this skill is to go through some[br]examples that will give you models of what

0:03:06.028,0:03:11.717
needs to be clarified and what doesn't.[br]Sometimes, you know, in clarity lies in a

0:03:11.717,0:03:18.185
single word. In the 1980's Nancy Reagan[br]used to say, just say no to drugs. What

0:03:18.185,0:03:24.669
does that mean? Well, she is telling you[br]not to use drugs, to say no when somebody

0:03:24.669,0:03:31.235
offers you drugs or tries to tell you to[br]use drugs. So, in effect, she's saying you

0:03:31.235,0:03:38.688
ought not to use drugs. That's pretty[br]clear but now what does she mean by drugs?

0:03:38.688,0:03:44.836
Does she mean aspirin? I don't think she's[br]telling you not to use aspirin. Does she

0:03:44.836,0:03:50.335
mean prescription drugs? I don't think[br]she's telling you not to follow the advice

0:03:50.335,0:03:56.019
of your doctor and use the prescriptions[br]that the doctor told you to take. So that

0:03:56.019,0:04:03.960
can't be what she means. Well, maybe she[br]means illegal drugs. Okay. Maybe she means

0:04:03.960,0:04:08.679
illegal drugs. What about heroin or[br]cocaine? Yes, that's what she is telling

0:04:08.679,0:04:14.036
you not to do. She is definitely telling[br]you not to take illegal drugs, but then

0:04:14.036,0:04:19.329
there are some things in the middle. She[br]might be telling you not to take dangerous

0:04:19.329,0:04:24.240
drugs whether they are illegal or not.[br]What about nicotine? What about alcohol?

0:04:24.240,0:04:29.680
Those are both dangerous drugs, at least[br]when you use in excess. Alcohol is very

0:04:29.680,0:04:34.982
dangerous, and smoking can lead to lung[br]cancer, and that's how most people get

0:04:34.982,0:04:40.491
nicotine. So maybe she's telling you not[br]to take nico tine or alcohol in addition

0:04:40.491,0:04:46.000
to illegal drugs heroin and cocaine. Now[br]it's not clear, so how do we clear it up?

0:04:46.000,0:04:52.552
Well, you want Nancy Reagan's claim to[br]look as good as possible. Remember, you're

0:04:52.552,0:04:58.332
always trying to make the argument look as[br]good as possible. And one way to make it

0:04:58.332,0:05:05.005
look good is to make her claim no more[br]than she has to claim. So, she could be

0:05:05.005,0:05:10.100
claiming, in addition to heroin and[br]cocaine, you shouldn't take alcohol and

0:05:10.100,0:05:15.435
nicotine. But probably, or at least more[br]plausibly, she's telling you not to take

0:05:15.435,0:05:21.122
illegal drugs. She had to chose between[br]interpreting her and saying don't take any

0:05:21.122,0:05:26.393
illegal drugs and don't take any dangerous[br]drugs. And it's seems like a more

0:05:26.393,0:05:32.010
charitable interpretation that makes her[br]claim look more plausible is don't take

0:05:32.010,0:05:37.003
any illegal drugs. So we could clarify her[br]claim, just say no to drugs, by

0:05:37.003,0:05:42.566
interpreting it to mean you ought to not[br]to take any illegal drugs. So in general

0:05:42.566,0:05:47.671
then, the lesson is that, when there are[br]options about how to clarify a certain

0:05:47.671,0:05:52.383
sentence, we ought to pick the most[br]charitable option that makes the claim

0:05:52.383,0:05:58.047
look as good as possible. Here's another[br]example, where the unclarity can be traced

0:05:58.047,0:06:03.700
to a single word, but in this case it's[br]the word that," and it's not clear what it

0:06:03.700,0:06:09.424
refers to. So imagine that someone argues[br]like this. Let's say, she claims, that our

0:06:09.424,0:06:15.780
strategy won't work, because the enemy[br]knows our plan, but that is a big mistake.

0:06:16.780,0:06:24.940
What does that refer to? That could refer[br]to, that is the word that could refer to

0:06:25.900,0:06:30.787
that the enemy knows our plan. If someone[br]says, that's a mistake, they might be

0:06:30.787,0:06:36.072
saying, it's a mistake to think that the[br]enemy knows our plan. But it could refer

0:06:36.072,0:06:41.422
to the claim that our strategy won't work.[br]They could be saying, it's a mistake to

0:06:41.422,0:06:46.508
think our strategy won't work. Or, they[br]could be saying that the mistake is to

0:06:46.508,0:06:52.359
think that the enemy knowing our plan is[br]enough to make it not work. He might be

0:06:52.359,0:06:57.090
saying, it's not that it won't work[br]because the enemy knows the plan. Or,

0:06:57.090,0:07:02.354
here's a fourth possibility. He could be[br]saying, that is a mistake to think that

0:07:02.354,0:07:08.522
she claims that, that's not what she[br]claims. So, there are four different ways

0:07:08.522,0:07:15.096
to interpret, this argument, and in order[br]to figure out how to interpret it, we have

0:07:15.096,0:07:21.097
to figure out which of those is most[br]likely as an interpretation of what the

0:07:21.097,0:07:27.465
arguer is trying to say. And that's going[br]to depend on which one makes the argument

0:07:27.465,0:07:31.891
look the best. Now in this example it's[br]not clear which interpretation is the

0:07:31.891,0:07:36.095
best, because someone might give that[br]argument in a context where they're saying

0:07:36.095,0:07:40.300
the mistake is to think she claims that.[br]But in other cases they might be saying

0:07:40.300,0:07:44.347
that the mistake is to think that the[br]enemy knows our plan. They don't really

0:07:44.347,0:07:48.446
know our plan, and in other cases that[br]might be claiming that other things are

0:07:48.446,0:07:52.388
mistaken. So, we need to figure out what[br]the person is saying, but that could

0:07:52.388,0:07:56.945
depend on the particular context. It might[br]vary from context to context. Now these

0:07:56.945,0:08:03.217
unclarities seem unintentional. But[br]sometimes people use unclearity to hide

0:08:03.217,0:08:09.819
problems with their argument, to try to[br]fool you. So imagine, a politician says we

0:08:09.819,0:08:16.257
need to stop our enemies and stand by our[br]friends, so we must remain strong and

0:08:16.257,0:08:22.775
resolute. Well, if somebody starts arguing[br]like that, you ought to be asking

0:08:22.775,0:08:28.220
yourself, who do they think our friends[br]are? Who do they think our enemies are?

0:08:28.220,0:08:33.097
What do they mean, stop our enemies? Are[br]they calling for military action? How do

0:08:33.097,0:08:37.913
they think we ought to stop our enemies?[br]And standing by our friends. Does that

0:08:37.913,0:08:42.791
mean we ought to support'em, no matter[br]what they do? There are lots of questions

0:08:42.791,0:08:47.669
that you would want to ask, to clarify[br]exactly which claim is being made before

0:08:47.669,0:08:52.423
you accept something like this. Here's[br]another claim that might be made by an

0:08:52.423,0:08:57.240
opponent of the first politician. We have[br]to help the needy. Well, wait a minute.

0:08:57.240,0:09:02.246
Which people are needy? I mean everybody[br]needs something. How needy to you have to

0:09:02.246,0:09:07.315
be needy? And we ought to help the needy.[br]Well how are we gonna help them? Does that

0:09:07.315,0:09:12.075
mean we just give them what ever they[br]want, or what are we suppose to give them?

0:09:12.075,0:09:17.267
And when are we suppose to give them an d[br]how much are we willing to spend on giving

0:09:17.267,0:09:22.274
it to them? Politicians on both sides of[br]the political spectrum make vague claims

0:09:22.274,0:09:26.786
that need to clarified before you should[br]be willing to endorse one or the other of

0:09:26.786,0:09:32.408
those claims. If you try to decide what to[br]believe before you know exactly what the

0:09:32.408,0:09:37.915
claim means, before you've calrified it,[br]you can end up commiting yourself to all

0:09:37.915,0:09:43.009
kinds on nonsense and all kinds of very[br]problematic positions. You can get

0:09:43.009,0:09:48.171
yourself in to a lot of trouble. That's[br]why we need to clarify the terms in

0:09:48.171,0:09:53.424
arguments. Now, one special way in which[br]premises need to be clarified, is that

0:09:53.424,0:09:58.534
they need to be broken up into smaller[br]parts, where you can do that. And the

0:09:58.534,0:10:04.052
point of this, is that the smaller parts[br]are going to be easier to understand, and

0:10:04.052,0:10:09.298
easier to assess for whether they're true[br]or not. So, step four, to clarify the

0:10:09.298,0:10:14.726
premises, belongs together with step five,[br]break up the premises into parts. What

0:10:14.726,0:10:20.980
needs to be broken up? Well, the explicit[br]premises and sometimes the conclusion as

0:10:20.980,0:10:27.465
well. Here's a simple example. That shirt[br]looks great on you and it's on sale, so

0:10:27.465,0:10:34.752
you ought to buy it. We might put that in[br]standard form like this. That shirt looks

0:10:34.752,0:10:40.368
great on you and it's on sale is the[br]premise and the conclusion is you ought to

0:10:40.368,0:10:46.748
buy it. But notice that the premise has[br]two parts, joined by an and. So we could

0:10:46.748,0:10:52.900
break them up and have the first premise,[br]that shirt looks great on you, and the

0:10:52.900,0:10:58.740
second premise it's on sale and then the[br]conclusion is you ought to buy it."

0:10:59.880,0:11:05.243
Breaking up like that is supposed to make[br]it easier to assess the premise for truth

0:11:05.243,0:11:10.804
or falsehood. Now in this case it doesn't[br]make it much easier cause it was so simple

0:11:10.804,0:11:16.300
to begin with, but we'll see that breaking[br]up premises will really help when we get

0:11:16.300,0:11:21.464
to more complex examples. So, it makes[br]sense to break up premises. Well, at least

0:11:21.464,0:11:26.562
sometimes. We should not break up premises[br]when breaking them up distorts the

0:11:26.562,0:11:31.518
argument. Here's an example of that. We[br]still need to add either one more cup

0:11:31.518,0:11:37.253
white of suger, or one more cup of brown[br]sugar to complete the recipe. So we've got

0:11:37.253,0:11:43.198
to add another cup of ingredients. Now one[br]way to represent that argument would be to

0:11:43.198,0:11:48.794
say the premise is, we still need to add[br]one more cup of white sugar, or one more

0:11:48.794,0:11:54.600
cup of brown sugar, and the conclusion is,[br]we have another cup of ingredients to add.

0:11:55.280,0:12:00.585
But we can break it up cuz it's got parts.[br]We can change the argument into we still

0:12:00.585,0:12:05.699
need to add one more cup of white sugar.[br]That's the first premise, and the second

0:12:05.699,0:12:11.133
premise is we still need to add one cup of[br]brown sugar. And then the conclusion is we

0:12:11.133,0:12:16.311
have one more cup of ingredients to add,[br]but that argument doesn't make any sense.

0:12:16.311,0:12:21.552
If we've got to add one of white and one[br]of brown, we don't just have one more cup

0:12:21.552,0:12:26.730
of ingredients to add. And as always we're[br]supposed to be making the argument look

0:12:26.730,0:12:33.888
good and that change made it look bad. And[br]the problem is that here we broke up the

0:12:33.888,0:12:39.946
word or. Because it's one cup of white or[br]one cup of brown and presumably you didn't

0:12:39.946,0:12:44.967
know which it was, or maybe you had a[br]choice between the two but you weren't

0:12:44.967,0:12:50.119
suppose to add both. That would be too[br]much, and the word or signals that. So in

0:12:50.119,0:12:55.442
general, you should not break up when the[br]word that joins the two is or, but it's

0:12:55.442,0:13:00.851
okay to break up when the word that joins[br]the two is and. You still got to be

0:13:00.851,0:13:06.120
careful about context. It's not always[br]goint to work that way, but as a general

0:13:06.120,0:13:11.740
rule you know, that usually works. Other[br]cases are even trickier. One particularly

0:13:11.740,0:13:17.211
problematic case is dependent clauses.[br]Here's an example. Nancy finished all her

0:13:17.211,0:13:22.541
homework because all she had to do was[br]write 25 lines of poetry, and she wrote

0:13:22.541,0:13:28.502
two sonnets, which have fourteen lines[br]each. The dependent clauses, which have

0:13:28.502,0:13:34.653
fourteen lines each. And the question is,[br]how do we fit that into standard form.

0:13:34.653,0:13:40.172
Well, here's one stab. The first premise[br]can say, all she had to do is write 25

0:13:40.172,0:13:45.621
lines of poetry. And the second premise[br]can be, she wrote two sonnets which have

0:13:45.621,0:13:50.449
fourteen lines each. And then the[br]conclusion is, Nancy finished all her

0:13:50.449,0:13:56.753
homework. Now the question is can we break[br]up that second premis e into two different

0:13:56.753,0:14:01.729
parts? It seems like we can. We should be[br]able to represent the argument. So the

0:14:01.729,0:14:06.210
first premise is, all she had to do is[br]write 25 lines of poetry and the second

0:14:06.210,0:14:10.920
premise says she wrote two sonnets and the[br]third premise is sonnets have fourteen

0:14:10.920,0:14:15.310
lines each and the conclusion is she[br]finished all her homework. In this case,

0:14:15.310,0:14:20.226
breaking down the premise actually helps[br]us understand and asses it. Because we can

0:14:20.226,0:14:24.787
decide whether it's really true, for[br]example, that sonnets have fourteen lines

0:14:24.787,0:14:29.466
each. That's going to be a question. If[br]the answer is no, then the argument might

0:14:29.466,0:14:33.909
fail. The answer is yes, at least for[br]standard sonnets. So the argument looks

0:14:33.909,0:14:38.947
pretty good. Contrast that example with[br]this one. Our legal system isn't fair

0:14:38.947,0:14:44.019
because authorities go easy on white[br]collar criminals who have been allowed to

0:14:44.019,0:14:48.954
get away with their crimes in recent[br]years. Well the premise, could be,

0:14:48.954,0:14:54.556
authorities go easy on criminals who've[br]been allowed to get away with their crimes

0:14:54.556,0:14:59.618
in recent years. And, the conclusion is,[br]our legal system isn't fair. Now the

0:14:59.618,0:15:05.085
question is, can we break up that first[br]premise, cuz it has the dependent clause,

0:15:05.085,0:15:11.328
who've been allowed to get away with their[br]crimes in recent years. Well that depends,

0:15:11.328,0:15:17.235
because the person giving the argument[br]might be saying that authorities go easy

0:15:17.235,0:15:22.676
on all white collar criminals. And, they[br]might be saying that authorities only go

0:15:22.676,0:15:27.968
easy on a certain subset of white collar[br]criminals, namely the subset they've been

0:15:27.968,0:15:33.002
allowed to get away with their crimes in[br]recent years. If the premises now all

0:15:33.002,0:15:37.714
white collar criminals, then we can break[br]it up so that one premises says

0:15:37.714,0:15:42.812
authorities go easy on white collar[br]criminals, and the next premise says white

0:15:42.812,0:15:48.040
collar criminals have been allowed to get[br]away with their crimes in recent years.

0:15:48.040,0:15:52.640
But if the arguer is only talking about[br]some white collar criminals, and admits

0:15:52.640,0:15:57.591
that other white collar criminals have not[br]been allowed to get away with their crime,

0:15:57.591,0:16:02.133
then he's only saying that authorities go[br]easy on those white collar criminals who

0:16:02.133,0:16:06.501
have been allowed to get away with their[br]crime, that subset of white collar

0:16:06.501,0:16:11.277
criminals. And then it would distort the[br]argument to break it up, because if you do

0:16:11.277,0:16:16.111
break it up then that second premise says[br]white collar criminals have been allowed

0:16:16.111,0:16:21.677
to get away with their crimes in recent[br]years. And if some of them haven't, then

0:16:21.677,0:16:27.476
that premise turns out to be false. So if[br]you break it up you can criticize it by

0:16:27.476,0:16:32.415
pointing out that it doesn't really apply[br]to all white collar criminals, but if you

0:16:32.415,0:16:37.413
leave it as a single premise then it's not[br]subject to that criticism, so if you want

0:16:37.413,0:16:42.071
to be charitable, you probably ought to[br]keep this premise together. Unless you

0:16:42.071,0:16:47.126
know, on independent grounds, that the[br]person was making that claim about all

0:16:47.126,0:16:52.093
white collar criminals and not just a[br]subset. So to make that argument look

0:16:52.093,0:16:57.553
better we don't break up the premise and[br]the general lesson is that with dependent

0:16:57.553,0:17:02.881
clauses like that and with and who, you[br]have to look very carefully to figure out

0:17:02.881,0:17:08.209
what the speaker wanted to say and what's[br]going to make their argument look best.

0:17:08.209,0:17:13.471
And use that information to determine[br]whether or not break up the premise. There

0:17:13.471,0:17:18.865
are no air tight rules as always, so we[br]need to do a few exercises to practice the