[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:02.38,0:00:06.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We're right in the middle of\Nreconstruction. We did stage one last
Dialogue: 0,0:00:06.60,0:00:11.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,week, cuz that's just close analysis. In\Nthe previous section we did stage two,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:11.48,0:00:16.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which is to remove excess verbiage, and to\Nput the explicit premises and conclusion
Dialogue: 0,0:00:16.75,0:00:21.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,into standard form. And this lecture is\Ngoing to focus on stage three, which is
Dialogue: 0,0:00:21.69,0:00:27.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the clarify the premises and to break them\Nup. Where it's possible without distorting
Dialogue: 0,0:00:27.08,0:00:31.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,them. Let's start with step four, which is\Nto clarify the premises and the
Dialogue: 0,0:00:31.70,0:00:37.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclusion, when it's needed. So we might\Nneed to clarify them just in order to make
Dialogue: 0,0:00:37.38,0:00:42.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,them easier to understand, or to make them\Nless likely to mislead, and all that
Dialogue: 0,0:00:42.90,0:00:49.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sounds pretty good. So let's try on this\Nexample. It was hot today, so it'll
Dialogue: 0,0:00:49.18,0:00:58.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,probably be hot tomorrow again. And we\Nneed to clarify that. What exactly counts
Dialogue: 0,0:00:58.04,0:01:04.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as today? Is that, you know, the time when\Nthere's daylight, or does it also include
Dialogue: 0,0:01:04.74,0:01:10.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,night, even though night is not day? And\Nwhat exactly do we mean by hot? How hot
Dialogue: 0,0:01:10.48,0:01:15.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was it today, and how hot will it be\Ntomorrow? And what, after all, is heat?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:15.78,0:01:20.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And what about, it'll probably be hot\Ntomorrow? Probability. That's a tough
Dialogue: 0,0:01:20.44,0:01:25.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,notion. We're going to spend a whole week\Non that later on in the course. And there
Dialogue: 0,0:01:25.49,0:01:30.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are different kinds of probability, and I\Nwant to know what kind you're talking
Dialogue: 0,0:01:30.28,0:01:35.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about here. And when you ask for example,\Nabout it will be hot tomorrow, what is,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:35.27,0:01:40.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what does will mean? It means it's going\Nto happen in the future, and what exactly
Dialogue: 0,0:01:40.25,0:01:45.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is the future? And is the future real? Is\Ntime real? You can go a long way towards
Dialogue: 0,0:01:45.36,0:01:50.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,asking how to clarify that argument. But\Nthat's ridiculous, you know. We don't have
Dialogue: 0,0:01:50.76,0:01:56.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to clarify a simple argument like it was\Nhot today so it will probably be hot
Dialogue: 0,0:01:56.50,0:02:01.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tomorrow. And it's lucky we don't have to\Nclarify every word in the argument because
Dialogue: 0,0:02:01.58,0:02:05.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we couldn't because after all when you\Nexplain one of the words or give a
Dialogue: 0,0:02:05.95,0:02:10.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,definition for it, it's going to be in\Nterms of other words and then they have to
Dialogue: 0,0:02:10.73,0:02:15.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,get clarified and you'll never going to\Nget to the end of it. The search for
Dialogue: 0,0:02:15.21,0:02:19.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,perfect clarity and absolute precision is\Nimpossible. You'll never complete that
Dialogue: 0,0:02:19.93,0:02:24.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,search. You'll never find perfect clarity\Nor absolute precision, so give it up. What
Dialogue: 0,0:02:24.80,0:02:29.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we should seek is not absolute precision,\Nbut adequate precision. Not absolute
Dialogue: 0,0:02:29.98,0:02:35.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,clarity, but adequate clarity. And that\Nmeans that we ought to try to clear up
Dialogue: 0,0:02:35.08,0:02:40.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,those parts of the premises and conclusion\Nthat are likely to produce confusion
Dialogue: 0,0:02:40.45,0:02:45.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,later. And you have to be able to kind of\Npredict whether this part of the argument
Dialogue: 0,0:02:45.82,0:02:50.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,needs to be clarified, because people are\Ngoing to get confused by it. Now that's
Dialogue: 0,0:02:50.96,0:02:56.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not going to be easy, and there's no\Nsimple or mechanical rule to tell you what
Dialogue: 0,0:02:56.07,0:03:00.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,needs to be clarified, and what doesn't\Nneed to be clarified. The only way to
Dialogue: 0,0:03:00.72,0:03:06.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,learn this skill is to go through some\Nexamples that will give you models of what
Dialogue: 0,0:03:06.03,0:03:11.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,needs to be clarified and what doesn't.\NSometimes, you know, in clarity lies in a
Dialogue: 0,0:03:11.72,0:03:18.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,single word. In the 1980's Nancy Reagan\Nused to say, just say no to drugs. What
Dialogue: 0,0:03:18.18,0:03:24.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,does that mean? Well, she is telling you\Nnot to use drugs, to say no when somebody
Dialogue: 0,0:03:24.67,0:03:31.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,offers you drugs or tries to tell you to\Nuse drugs. So, in effect, she's saying you
Dialogue: 0,0:03:31.24,0:03:38.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ought not to use drugs. That's pretty\Nclear but now what does she mean by drugs?
Dialogue: 0,0:03:38.69,0:03:44.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Does she mean aspirin? I don't think she's\Ntelling you not to use aspirin. Does she
Dialogue: 0,0:03:44.84,0:03:50.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mean prescription drugs? I don't think\Nshe's telling you not to follow the advice
Dialogue: 0,0:03:50.34,0:03:56.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of your doctor and use the prescriptions\Nthat the doctor told you to take. So that
Dialogue: 0,0:03:56.02,0:04:03.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can't be what she means. Well, maybe she\Nmeans illegal drugs. Okay. Maybe she means
Dialogue: 0,0:04:03.96,0:04:08.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,illegal drugs. What about heroin or\Ncocaine? Yes, that's what she is telling
Dialogue: 0,0:04:08.68,0:04:14.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you not to do. She is definitely telling\Nyou not to take illegal drugs, but then
Dialogue: 0,0:04:14.04,0:04:19.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there are some things in the middle. She\Nmight be telling you not to take dangerous
Dialogue: 0,0:04:19.33,0:04:24.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,drugs whether they are illegal or not.\NWhat about nicotine? What about alcohol?
Dialogue: 0,0:04:24.24,0:04:29.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Those are both dangerous drugs, at least\Nwhen you use in excess. Alcohol is very
Dialogue: 0,0:04:29.68,0:04:34.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,dangerous, and smoking can lead to lung\Ncancer, and that's how most people get
Dialogue: 0,0:04:34.98,0:04:40.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,nicotine. So maybe she's telling you not\Nto take nico tine or alcohol in addition
Dialogue: 0,0:04:40.49,0:04:46.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to illegal drugs heroin and cocaine. Now\Nit's not clear, so how do we clear it up?
Dialogue: 0,0:04:46.00,0:04:52.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, you want Nancy Reagan's claim to\Nlook as good as possible. Remember, you're
Dialogue: 0,0:04:52.55,0:04:58.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,always trying to make the argument look as\Ngood as possible. And one way to make it
Dialogue: 0,0:04:58.33,0:05:05.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,look good is to make her claim no more\Nthan she has to claim. So, she could be
Dialogue: 0,0:05:05.00,0:05:10.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,claiming, in addition to heroin and\Ncocaine, you shouldn't take alcohol and
Dialogue: 0,0:05:10.10,0:05:15.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,nicotine. But probably, or at least more\Nplausibly, she's telling you not to take
Dialogue: 0,0:05:15.44,0:05:21.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,illegal drugs. She had to chose between\Ninterpreting her and saying don't take any
Dialogue: 0,0:05:21.12,0:05:26.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,illegal drugs and don't take any dangerous\Ndrugs. And it's seems like a more
Dialogue: 0,0:05:26.39,0:05:32.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,charitable interpretation that makes her\Nclaim look more plausible is don't take
Dialogue: 0,0:05:32.01,0:05:37.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,any illegal drugs. So we could clarify her\Nclaim, just say no to drugs, by
Dialogue: 0,0:05:37.00,0:05:42.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,interpreting it to mean you ought to not\Nto take any illegal drugs. So in general
Dialogue: 0,0:05:42.57,0:05:47.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then, the lesson is that, when there are\Noptions about how to clarify a certain
Dialogue: 0,0:05:47.67,0:05:52.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sentence, we ought to pick the most\Ncharitable option that makes the claim
Dialogue: 0,0:05:52.38,0:05:58.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,look as good as possible. Here's another\Nexample, where the unclarity can be traced
Dialogue: 0,0:05:58.05,0:06:03.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to a single word, but in this case it's\Nthe word that," and it's not clear what it
Dialogue: 0,0:06:03.70,0:06:09.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,refers to. So imagine that someone argues\Nlike this. Let's say, she claims, that our
Dialogue: 0,0:06:09.42,0:06:15.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,strategy won't work, because the enemy\Nknows our plan, but that is a big mistake.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:16.78,0:06:24.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What does that refer to? That could refer\Nto, that is the word that could refer to
Dialogue: 0,0:06:25.90,0:06:30.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that the enemy knows our plan. If someone\Nsays, that's a mistake, they might be
Dialogue: 0,0:06:30.79,0:06:36.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,saying, it's a mistake to think that the\Nenemy knows our plan. But it could refer
Dialogue: 0,0:06:36.07,0:06:41.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to the claim that our strategy won't work.\NThey could be saying, it's a mistake to
Dialogue: 0,0:06:41.42,0:06:46.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,think our strategy won't work. Or, they\Ncould be saying that the mistake is to
Dialogue: 0,0:06:46.51,0:06:52.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,think that the enemy knowing our plan is\Nenough to make it not work. He might be
Dialogue: 0,0:06:52.36,0:06:57.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,saying, it's not that it won't work\Nbecause the enemy knows the plan. Or,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:57.09,0:07:02.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,here's a fourth possibility. He could be\Nsaying, that is a mistake to think that
Dialogue: 0,0:07:02.35,0:07:08.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,she claims that, that's not what she\Nclaims. So, there are four different ways
Dialogue: 0,0:07:08.52,0:07:15.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to interpret, this argument, and in order\Nto figure out how to interpret it, we have
Dialogue: 0,0:07:15.10,0:07:21.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to figure out which of those is most\Nlikely as an interpretation of what the
Dialogue: 0,0:07:21.10,0:07:27.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arguer is trying to say. And that's going\Nto depend on which one makes the argument
Dialogue: 0,0:07:27.46,0:07:31.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,look the best. Now in this example it's\Nnot clear which interpretation is the
Dialogue: 0,0:07:31.89,0:07:36.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,best, because someone might give that\Nargument in a context where they're saying
Dialogue: 0,0:07:36.10,0:07:40.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the mistake is to think she claims that.\NBut in other cases they might be saying
Dialogue: 0,0:07:40.30,0:07:44.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that the mistake is to think that the\Nenemy knows our plan. They don't really
Dialogue: 0,0:07:44.35,0:07:48.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know our plan, and in other cases that\Nmight be claiming that other things are
Dialogue: 0,0:07:48.45,0:07:52.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mistaken. So, we need to figure out what\Nthe person is saying, but that could
Dialogue: 0,0:07:52.39,0:07:56.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,depend on the particular context. It might\Nvary from context to context. Now these
Dialogue: 0,0:07:56.94,0:08:03.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,unclarities seem unintentional. But\Nsometimes people use unclearity to hide
Dialogue: 0,0:08:03.22,0:08:09.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,problems with their argument, to try to\Nfool you. So imagine, a politician says we
Dialogue: 0,0:08:09.82,0:08:16.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,need to stop our enemies and stand by our\Nfriends, so we must remain strong and
Dialogue: 0,0:08:16.26,0:08:22.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,resolute. Well, if somebody starts arguing\Nlike that, you ought to be asking
Dialogue: 0,0:08:22.78,0:08:28.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,yourself, who do they think our friends\Nare? Who do they think our enemies are?
Dialogue: 0,0:08:28.22,0:08:33.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What do they mean, stop our enemies? Are\Nthey calling for military action? How do
Dialogue: 0,0:08:33.10,0:08:37.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they think we ought to stop our enemies?\NAnd standing by our friends. Does that
Dialogue: 0,0:08:37.91,0:08:42.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mean we ought to support'em, no matter\Nwhat they do? There are lots of questions
Dialogue: 0,0:08:42.79,0:08:47.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that you would want to ask, to clarify\Nexactly which claim is being made before
Dialogue: 0,0:08:47.67,0:08:52.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you accept something like this. Here's\Nanother claim that might be made by an
Dialogue: 0,0:08:52.42,0:08:57.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,opponent of the first politician. We have\Nto help the needy. Well, wait a minute.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:57.24,0:09:02.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Which people are needy? I mean everybody\Nneeds something. How needy to you have to
Dialogue: 0,0:09:02.25,0:09:07.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be needy? And we ought to help the needy.\NWell how are we gonna help them? Does that
Dialogue: 0,0:09:07.32,0:09:12.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mean we just give them what ever they\Nwant, or what are we suppose to give them?
Dialogue: 0,0:09:12.08,0:09:17.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And when are we suppose to give them an d\Nhow much are we willing to spend on giving
Dialogue: 0,0:09:17.27,0:09:22.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it to them? Politicians on both sides of\Nthe political spectrum make vague claims
Dialogue: 0,0:09:22.27,0:09:26.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that need to clarified before you should\Nbe willing to endorse one or the other of
Dialogue: 0,0:09:26.79,0:09:32.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,those claims. If you try to decide what to\Nbelieve before you know exactly what the
Dialogue: 0,0:09:32.41,0:09:37.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,claim means, before you've calrified it,\Nyou can end up commiting yourself to all
Dialogue: 0,0:09:37.92,0:09:43.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,kinds on nonsense and all kinds of very\Nproblematic positions. You can get
Dialogue: 0,0:09:43.01,0:09:48.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,yourself in to a lot of trouble. That's\Nwhy we need to clarify the terms in
Dialogue: 0,0:09:48.17,0:09:53.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arguments. Now, one special way in which\Npremises need to be clarified, is that
Dialogue: 0,0:09:53.42,0:09:58.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they need to be broken up into smaller\Nparts, where you can do that. And the
Dialogue: 0,0:09:58.53,0:10:04.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,point of this, is that the smaller parts\Nare going to be easier to understand, and
Dialogue: 0,0:10:04.05,0:10:09.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,easier to assess for whether they're true\Nor not. So, step four, to clarify the
Dialogue: 0,0:10:09.30,0:10:14.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premises, belongs together with step five,\Nbreak up the premises into parts. What
Dialogue: 0,0:10:14.73,0:10:20.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,needs to be broken up? Well, the explicit\Npremises and sometimes the conclusion as
Dialogue: 0,0:10:20.98,0:10:27.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,well. Here's a simple example. That shirt\Nlooks great on you and it's on sale, so
Dialogue: 0,0:10:27.46,0:10:34.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you ought to buy it. We might put that in\Nstandard form like this. That shirt looks
Dialogue: 0,0:10:34.75,0:10:40.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,great on you and it's on sale is the\Npremise and the conclusion is you ought to
Dialogue: 0,0:10:40.37,0:10:46.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,buy it. But notice that the premise has\Ntwo parts, joined by an and. So we could
Dialogue: 0,0:10:46.75,0:10:52.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,break them up and have the first premise,\Nthat shirt looks great on you, and the
Dialogue: 0,0:10:52.90,0:10:58.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,second premise it's on sale and then the\Nconclusion is you ought to buy it."
Dialogue: 0,0:10:59.88,0:11:05.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Breaking up like that is supposed to make\Nit easier to assess the premise for truth
Dialogue: 0,0:11:05.24,0:11:10.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or falsehood. Now in this case it doesn't\Nmake it much easier cause it was so simple
Dialogue: 0,0:11:10.80,0:11:16.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to begin with, but we'll see that breaking\Nup premises will really help when we get
Dialogue: 0,0:11:16.30,0:11:21.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to more complex examples. So, it makes\Nsense to break up premises. Well, at least
Dialogue: 0,0:11:21.46,0:11:26.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sometimes. We should not break up premises\Nwhen breaking them up distorts the
Dialogue: 0,0:11:26.56,0:11:31.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument. Here's an example of that. We\Nstill need to add either one more cup
Dialogue: 0,0:11:31.52,0:11:37.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,white of suger, or one more cup of brown\Nsugar to complete the recipe. So we've got
Dialogue: 0,0:11:37.25,0:11:43.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to add another cup of ingredients. Now one\Nway to represent that argument would be to
Dialogue: 0,0:11:43.20,0:11:48.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say the premise is, we still need to add\None more cup of white sugar, or one more
Dialogue: 0,0:11:48.79,0:11:54.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,cup of brown sugar, and the conclusion is,\Nwe have another cup of ingredients to add.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:55.28,0:12:00.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But we can break it up cuz it's got parts.\NWe can change the argument into we still
Dialogue: 0,0:12:00.58,0:12:05.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,need to add one more cup of white sugar.\NThat's the first premise, and the second
Dialogue: 0,0:12:05.70,0:12:11.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premise is we still need to add one cup of\Nbrown sugar. And then the conclusion is we
Dialogue: 0,0:12:11.13,0:12:16.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have one more cup of ingredients to add,\Nbut that argument doesn't make any sense.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:16.31,0:12:21.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If we've got to add one of white and one\Nof brown, we don't just have one more cup
Dialogue: 0,0:12:21.55,0:12:26.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of ingredients to add. And as always we're\Nsupposed to be making the argument look
Dialogue: 0,0:12:26.73,0:12:33.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,good and that change made it look bad. And\Nthe problem is that here we broke up the
Dialogue: 0,0:12:33.89,0:12:39.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,word or. Because it's one cup of white or\None cup of brown and presumably you didn't
Dialogue: 0,0:12:39.95,0:12:44.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know which it was, or maybe you had a\Nchoice between the two but you weren't
Dialogue: 0,0:12:44.97,0:12:50.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,suppose to add both. That would be too\Nmuch, and the word or signals that. So in
Dialogue: 0,0:12:50.12,0:12:55.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,general, you should not break up when the\Nword that joins the two is or, but it's
Dialogue: 0,0:12:55.44,0:13:00.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,okay to break up when the word that joins\Nthe two is and. You still got to be
Dialogue: 0,0:13:00.85,0:13:06.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,careful about context. It's not always\Ngoint to work that way, but as a general
Dialogue: 0,0:13:06.12,0:13:11.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rule you know, that usually works. Other\Ncases are even trickier. One particularly
Dialogue: 0,0:13:11.74,0:13:17.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,problematic case is dependent clauses.\NHere's an example. Nancy finished all her
Dialogue: 0,0:13:17.21,0:13:22.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,homework because all she had to do was\Nwrite 25 lines of poetry, and she wrote
Dialogue: 0,0:13:22.54,0:13:28.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,two sonnets, which have fourteen lines\Neach. The dependent clauses, which have
Dialogue: 0,0:13:28.50,0:13:34.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fourteen lines each. And the question is,\Nhow do we fit that into standard form.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:34.65,0:13:40.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, here's one stab. The first premise\Ncan say, all she had to do is write 25
Dialogue: 0,0:13:40.17,0:13:45.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lines of poetry. And the second premise\Ncan be, she wrote two sonnets which have
Dialogue: 0,0:13:45.62,0:13:50.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fourteen lines each. And then the\Nconclusion is, Nancy finished all her
Dialogue: 0,0:13:50.45,0:13:56.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,homework. Now the question is can we break\Nup that second premis e into two different
Dialogue: 0,0:13:56.75,0:14:01.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,parts? It seems like we can. We should be\Nable to represent the argument. So the
Dialogue: 0,0:14:01.73,0:14:06.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,first premise is, all she had to do is\Nwrite 25 lines of poetry and the second
Dialogue: 0,0:14:06.21,0:14:10.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premise says she wrote two sonnets and the\Nthird premise is sonnets have fourteen
Dialogue: 0,0:14:10.92,0:14:15.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lines each and the conclusion is she\Nfinished all her homework. In this case,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:15.31,0:14:20.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,breaking down the premise actually helps\Nus understand and asses it. Because we can
Dialogue: 0,0:14:20.23,0:14:24.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,decide whether it's really true, for\Nexample, that sonnets have fourteen lines
Dialogue: 0,0:14:24.79,0:14:29.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,each. That's going to be a question. If\Nthe answer is no, then the argument might
Dialogue: 0,0:14:29.47,0:14:33.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fail. The answer is yes, at least for\Nstandard sonnets. So the argument looks
Dialogue: 0,0:14:33.91,0:14:38.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pretty good. Contrast that example with\Nthis one. Our legal system isn't fair
Dialogue: 0,0:14:38.95,0:14:44.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because authorities go easy on white\Ncollar criminals who have been allowed to
Dialogue: 0,0:14:44.02,0:14:48.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,get away with their crimes in recent\Nyears. Well the premise, could be,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:48.95,0:14:54.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,authorities go easy on criminals who've\Nbeen allowed to get away with their crimes
Dialogue: 0,0:14:54.56,0:14:59.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in recent years. And, the conclusion is,\Nour legal system isn't fair. Now the
Dialogue: 0,0:14:59.62,0:15:05.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,question is, can we break up that first\Npremise, cuz it has the dependent clause,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:05.08,0:15:11.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who've been allowed to get away with their\Ncrimes in recent years. Well that depends,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:11.33,0:15:17.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because the person giving the argument\Nmight be saying that authorities go easy
Dialogue: 0,0:15:17.24,0:15:22.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on all white collar criminals. And, they\Nmight be saying that authorities only go
Dialogue: 0,0:15:22.68,0:15:27.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,easy on a certain subset of white collar\Ncriminals, namely the subset they've been
Dialogue: 0,0:15:27.97,0:15:33.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,allowed to get away with their crimes in\Nrecent years. If the premises now all
Dialogue: 0,0:15:33.00,0:15:37.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,white collar criminals, then we can break\Nit up so that one premises says
Dialogue: 0,0:15:37.71,0:15:42.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,authorities go easy on white collar\Ncriminals, and the next premise says white
Dialogue: 0,0:15:42.81,0:15:48.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,collar criminals have been allowed to get\Naway with their crimes in recent years.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:48.04,0:15:52.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But if the arguer is only talking about\Nsome white collar criminals, and admits
Dialogue: 0,0:15:52.64,0:15:57.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that other white collar criminals have not\Nbeen allowed to get away with their crime,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:57.59,0:16:02.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then he's only saying that authorities go\Neasy on those white collar criminals who
Dialogue: 0,0:16:02.13,0:16:06.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have been allowed to get away with their\Ncrime, that subset of white collar
Dialogue: 0,0:16:06.50,0:16:11.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,criminals. And then it would distort the\Nargument to break it up, because if you do
Dialogue: 0,0:16:11.28,0:16:16.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,break it up then that second premise says\Nwhite collar criminals have been allowed
Dialogue: 0,0:16:16.11,0:16:21.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to get away with their crimes in recent\Nyears. And if some of them haven't, then
Dialogue: 0,0:16:21.68,0:16:27.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that premise turns out to be false. So if\Nyou break it up you can criticize it by
Dialogue: 0,0:16:27.48,0:16:32.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pointing out that it doesn't really apply\Nto all white collar criminals, but if you
Dialogue: 0,0:16:32.42,0:16:37.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,leave it as a single premise then it's not\Nsubject to that criticism, so if you want
Dialogue: 0,0:16:37.41,0:16:42.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to be charitable, you probably ought to\Nkeep this premise together. Unless you
Dialogue: 0,0:16:42.07,0:16:47.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know, on independent grounds, that the\Nperson was making that claim about all
Dialogue: 0,0:16:47.13,0:16:52.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,white collar criminals and not just a\Nsubset. So to make that argument look
Dialogue: 0,0:16:52.09,0:16:57.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,better we don't break up the premise and\Nthe general lesson is that with dependent
Dialogue: 0,0:16:57.55,0:17:02.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,clauses like that and with and who, you\Nhave to look very carefully to figure out
Dialogue: 0,0:17:02.88,0:17:08.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what the speaker wanted to say and what's\Ngoing to make their argument look best.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:08.21,0:17:13.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And use that information to determine\Nwhether or not break up the premise. There
Dialogue: 0,0:17:13.47,0:17:18.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are no air tight rules as always, so we\Nneed to do a few exercises to practice the