0:00:02.700,0:00:06.953
Now that we understand validity, we can[br]use the notion of validity in

0:00:06.953,0:00:12.009
reconstructing arguments. Now, the point[br]of reconstructing an argument is to put it

0:00:12.009,0:00:17.064
in a shape that makes it easier for us to[br]assess the argument more accurately and

0:00:17.064,0:00:22.105
fairly for whether it's a good argument or[br]a bad argument. And when we do the

0:00:22.105,0:00:26.726
reconstruction, remember, you want to make[br]it as good an argument as possible because

0:00:26.726,0:00:31.237
you don't learn anything from putting down[br]your enemies by making them look silly,

0:00:31.237,0:00:35.804
right? If you want to learn from somebody[br]else's argument, you need to put it in the

0:00:35.804,0:00:40.326
best shape you can to make it look as good[br]as possible. So, that's going to be the

0:00:40.326,0:00:45.466
goal of reconstruction. And we are going[br]to accomplish that goal in a series of

0:00:45.466,0:00:50.541
stages. The first stage simply to do a[br]close analysis and we talked about that

0:00:50.541,0:00:55.617
last week. The second stage is to get down[br]to basics. That is to remove all the

0:00:55.617,0:01:00.301
excess words and focus on the premises and[br]conclusions that really make up the

0:01:00.301,0:01:05.508
argument and then put those into standard[br]form. The third stage is to clarify those

0:01:05.508,0:01:09.627
premises. They're not always going to be[br]as clear as you like and that's going to

0:01:09.985,0:01:14.522
take some work and it's going to include[br]breaking them into parts. And then, the

0:01:14.522,0:01:19.058
next stage is to take those parts and[br]organize them, to put them in order, so

0:01:19.058,0:01:24.493
you can see how the argument flows from[br]one part to another. But not all arguments

0:01:24.493,0:01:29.584
are complete so the next stage, we have to[br]fill in the gaps, that is supply

0:01:29.584,0:01:34.765
suppressed premises. And once we've done[br]that, then the final stage is going to be

0:01:34.765,0:01:39.069
assess the argument. If we are able to[br]come up with a sound reconstruction, we

0:01:39.069,0:01:43.934
know that the conclusion has to be true.[br]Because as we learned in the previous

0:01:43.934,0:01:48.824
lecture, the conclusion of sound arguments[br]is always true. But if we don't come up

0:01:48.824,0:01:53.050
with a sound reconstruction, then we've[br]got to decide, is it the fault of the

0:01:53.050,0:01:57.832
argument or is it our own fault because we[br]didn't come up with a sound reconstruction

0:01:57.832,0:02:01.780
when there really is one that we didn't[br]find. So, that's going to be something we

0:02:01.780,0:02:05.839
have to discuss. We're g oing to discuss[br]all of these stages over the next few

0:02:05.839,0:02:10.304
lectures. Now, the first stage of[br]reconstruction is to do a close analysis.

0:02:10.304,0:02:15.322
But we already learned how to do that,[br]that was easy. Boy, I hope the rest of

0:02:15.322,0:02:20.880
them are that easy. This lecture is mainly[br]going to be about the second stage, namely

0:02:20.880,0:02:26.233
getting down to basics. And what we want[br]to do is to pull out the explicit premise

0:02:26.233,0:02:31.873
and conclusion from all the other words[br]around it. And the first step is to remove

0:02:31.873,0:02:36.786
all the excess verbiage. You know, it[br]might seem very surprising but people

0:02:36.786,0:02:41.632
often repeat themselves, I'm sure you've[br]all run into it. I mean, you listen to

0:02:41.632,0:02:47.141
somebody give a, a talk and it takes them[br]fifty minutes to say what they could have

0:02:47.141,0:02:52.651
said easily in five minutes and one of the[br]reasons is that they say everything ten

0:02:52.651,0:02:57.051
times. You know, for instance, people[br]often say the same thing twice, they

0:02:57.051,0:03:02.160
repeat themselves. They say the same thing[br]over again and they restate the point in

0:03:02.160,0:03:07.023
different words and they utter sentences[br]that mean the same thing. And they say

0:03:07.023,0:03:12.071
something and then, you know, they say it[br]again and they make a claim twice or more.

0:03:12.071,0:03:17.303
They exert exactly what they just said and[br]they reformulate their claim in different

0:03:17.303,0:03:22.104
words that are equivalent. They say it[br]once and then, they say it again, you get

0:03:22.104,0:03:27.610
the idea. Now, here is a real example from[br]a US politician during a debate. I'm going

0:03:27.040,0:03:34.457
to be honest with people, we can't[br]eliminate this deficit. People have heard

0:03:34.457,0:03:42.160
that over and over again in four years, we[br]cannot do it, we're in too deep a hole.

0:03:43.380,0:03:49.404
Now, if you think about it, it's going to[br]be obvious that we cannot do it. Repeats,

0:03:49.404,0:03:54.895
we can't eliminate this deficit, cuz[br]that's what it's doing, it is eliminating

0:03:54.895,0:04:00.733
the deficit. But also, we're in too deep a[br]hole. Well, that's just a metaphorical way

0:04:00.733,0:04:05.805
of saying the same thing. Why is the hole[br]too deep? Because we can't get out of it.

0:04:05.805,0:04:10.688
What hole is it? It's the deficit hole.[br]So, to say we can't get out of this hole,

0:04:10.688,0:04:15.446
we're in too deep a hole. It's just[br]another way of saying we can't eliminate

0:04:15.446,0:04:20.330
the deficit. So, in these three lin es,[br]he's already repeated himself three times.

0:04:20.330,0:04:24.856
Now, why does this politician repeat[br]himself? It might be that he thinks people

0:04:24.856,0:04:29.498
will remember it better or one version[br]will make more sense than another. But he

0:04:29.498,0:04:34.489
might have a special reason cuz this was a[br]live debate and he had to give a 90-second

0:04:34.489,0:04:39.131
answer. So, he had to fill up the time.[br]Sometimes people repeat themselves just to

0:04:39.131,0:04:43.890
fill up the time or maybe to give himself[br]time to think cuz he didn't have a real

0:04:43.890,0:04:48.474
answer ready yet and repeating himself is[br]easy while he thinks about what he's

0:04:48.474,0:04:52.818
really going to say in the next few[br]sentences. Fine. But repeating it still

0:04:52.818,0:04:58.232
doesn't make the argument any better and[br]we want to get down to the basics of the

0:04:58.232,0:05:04.043
argument that is the parts of the argument[br]that really affect how good it is, so we

0:05:04.043,0:05:09.589
can cross out those repetitions that don't[br]make the argument any better. So first, we

0:05:09.589,0:05:15.041
can cross out we cannot do it. Then, we[br]can cross out, we're in too deep a hole.

0:05:15.041,0:05:20.139
We already saw that those are just[br]repeating the claim that we can't

0:05:20.139,0:05:26.270
eliminate the deficit. In addition, we can[br]cross out, I want to be honest with people

0:05:26.270,0:05:32.084
because that's not a reason to believe[br]we're in too deep a deficit. And next, we

0:05:32.084,0:05:37.922
can cross out that people have heard that[br]over and over again in four years. Well,

0:05:37.922,0:05:43.977
that might be seen as a reason to believe[br]that we're in a deficit because everybody

0:05:43.977,0:05:49.743
seems to say it, but let's assume that's[br]not part of his argument here and we'll

0:05:49.743,0:05:55.746
cross it out. Now, let's move on. A second[br]form of excess verbiage that is words that

0:05:55.746,0:06:00.861
don't contribute to the force of the[br]argument is what I like to call road

0:06:00.861,0:06:05.846
markers. A lot of times, people, you know,[br]good speakers, they tell you what topic

0:06:05.846,0:06:11.026
they are talking about and why they are[br]talking about it. Why it's important and

0:06:11.026,0:06:16.270
worth talking about. But to say why it's[br]an important issue and to say what issue

0:06:16.270,0:06:21.384
it is, doesn't provide any reason to[br]believe that what they say about the issue

0:06:21.384,0:06:25.834
is true or false. So, it doesn't[br]contribute to the argument. Here's an

0:06:25.834,0:06:30.875
example from the same politician in the[br]same debate as we j ust saw. This

0:06:30.875,0:06:37.193
politician said, now, I want to go back to[br]the whole issue of healthcare, because we

0:06:37.193,0:06:43.049
touched it, and I think the American[br]people deserve to know what we would do

0:06:43.049,0:06:48.399
different. And notice that he says, he's[br]going to talk about healthcare but he

0:06:48.399,0:06:53.273
doesn't say anything about healthcare. He[br]didn't tell you what he's going to say

0:06:53.273,0:06:58.273
about healthcare. All he says is he wants[br]to go back to that issue. And he tells you

0:06:58.273,0:07:03.522
why he wants to go back to that issue. But[br]he doesn't add any reason to believe that

0:07:03.522,0:07:08.020
what he's about to say about the issue is[br]true. Now, this can, of course, still be

0:07:08.020,0:07:12.702
useful because you might get confused[br]about what the issue is and he might be

0:07:12.702,0:07:17.743
changing the topic and he wants to signal[br]that he is changing the topic, and that

0:07:17.263,0:07:22.005
will help his listeners. But it still[br]doesn't add to the argument, it doesn't

0:07:22.005,0:07:26.506
give you any reason for the conclusion[br]that he's going to want to draw. We can

0:07:26.506,0:07:31.368
cross out these excess words. we can cross[br]out, now, I want to go back to the whole

0:07:31.368,0:07:36.109
issue of healthcare because that doesn't[br]show that his views on healthcare are

0:07:36.109,0:07:40.451
correct. And we can cross out because we[br]touched it. That's a reason why we're

0:07:40.451,0:07:44.760
going to that issue, but again, that[br]doesn't give any reason why his views are

0:07:44.760,0:07:49.404
correct. And we can even cross out, but I[br]think the American people deserve to know

0:07:49.404,0:07:53.993
what we would do different because the[br]fact that they deserve to know what you're

0:07:53.993,0:07:58.246
going to do doesn't show that what you're[br]going to do is the right thing to do. So,

0:07:58.246,0:08:02.667
none of these claims are really reasons[br]that are going to be reasons for the main

0:08:02.667,0:08:07.256
part of his argument, which is to support[br]the particular views on healthcare that

0:08:07.256,0:08:12.182
he's going to tell you about a few seconds[br]after this. The next type of excess

0:08:12.182,0:08:18.920
verbiage is tangents. People go off on[br]tangents all the time. Here's an example.

0:08:19.580,0:08:24.224
You know, you really ought to think about[br]taking a History course. I, I still

0:08:24.224,0:08:29.179
remember my History courses in college.[br]There was this one time when, there was a

0:08:29.179,0:08:34.010
dog that one of the students brought to[br]class and, and the dog like barked and

0:08:34.010,0:08:38.593
then he ran up on stage and he, he cut[br]under the professor and knocked the

0:08:38.593,0:08:43.671
professor on his rear-end. It was really[br]funny. So, you know, I think that History

0:08:43.671,0:08:49.339
is a good thing to study. Now, notice that[br]all this stuff about the dog has nothing

0:08:49.339,0:08:54.465
to do with History. It's no reason to take[br]a History course instead of a Philosophy

0:08:54.465,0:08:59.343
course or a Classics course or a Science[br]course. The same thing could happen in

0:08:59.343,0:09:03.975
those courses just as well. So, the[br]tangent plays a certain role. It makes it

0:09:03.975,0:09:08.730
interesting. It keeps your attention.[br]Maybe it makes it memorable for you, what

0:09:08.730,0:09:13.732
he said. But it doesn't actually provide a[br]reason why you ought to take a History

0:09:13.732,0:09:20.428
course. So, since those parts of the words[br]were just a tangent that don't provide any

0:09:20.428,0:09:26.546
reason we can cross them out, too, because[br]they are excess verbiage. But sometimes,

0:09:26.546,0:09:32.253
people go off on irrelevant tangents. Not[br]just by accident because they lose their

0:09:32.253,0:09:37.404
train of thought, but because they're[br]trying to fool you. They're trying to

0:09:37.404,0:09:42.983
produce what is called a red herring. The[br]name red hearing supposedly comes from

0:09:42.983,0:09:48.322
somebody who crossed the red herring over[br]the trail and then the hound couldn't

0:09:48.322,0:09:53.394
track its scent anymore. And that's[br]basically what's going on here. Sometimes,

0:09:53.394,0:09:58.866
people produce tangents that distracts you[br]from the main line of argument because

0:09:58.866,0:10:03.871
they know that there are weaknesses in[br]that line of argument and they don't want

0:10:03.871,0:10:08.659
you to notice them. That's what a red[br]herring is. And it's a type of tangent

0:10:08.659,0:10:14.249
that you have to learn to watch out for.[br]Because if you want to see the problems in

0:10:14.249,0:10:19.908
your opponent's arguments or even in your[br]friend's arguments, then you need to not

0:10:19.908,0:10:26.143
get distracted by tangents that are in[br]effect red herrings. Yet, another example

0:10:26.143,0:10:33.872
of excess verbiage is, well, examples.[br]Here's an example of that. A different

0:10:33.872,0:10:40.330
politician in the same debate said this.[br]Here's what happened. In the time that

0:10:40.330,0:10:46.939
they have been in office in the last four[br]years, 1.6 million private sector jobs

0:10:46.939,0:10:53.622
have been lost, 2.7 million manufacturing[br]jobs have been lost. And it's had real

0:10:53.622,0:10:59.277
consequences in places like Cle veland.[br]Cleveland is a wonderful distinguished

0:10:59.277,0:11:05.151
city. It's done a lot of great things, but[br]it has the highest poverty rate in the

0:11:05.151,0:11:12.174
country. One out of almost two children in[br]Cleveland are now living in poverty. Now,

0:11:12.174,0:11:18.310
notice that this politician is talking[br]about the unemployment rate in the rest of

0:11:18.310,0:11:23.619
the country, in the country as a whole.[br]So, why bring in Cleveland? Well, you

0:11:23.619,0:11:28.357
might be saying that Cleveland shows that[br]there's problems throughout the rest of

0:11:28.357,0:11:32.863
the country, but that can't be right[br]because Cleveland is just one example. And

0:11:32.863,0:11:37.081
it might be an outlier that doesn't[br]represent the general trends. So, what

0:11:37.081,0:11:41.587
he's doing with this example is he's[br]trying to bring it down the home, and make

0:11:41.587,0:11:45.983
you feel for the real effects. But he[br]doesn't come out and say that you can

0:11:45.983,0:11:50.861
generalize from Cleveland to the rest of[br]the country, or that everyone else is

0:11:50.861,0:11:55.427
suffering in exactly the same way. He's[br]just giving one example. And so, it

0:11:55.427,0:12:00.181
doesn't really support his general claim[br]that the unemployment is a problem

0:12:00.181,0:12:05.859
throughout the whole country. That means[br]that it's not an extra premise in the

0:12:05.859,0:12:12.695
argument and we can cross it out like[br]other forms of excess verbiage. Now, we've

0:12:12.695,0:12:19.358
seen that excess verbiage can take the[br]form of repetition or road markers or

0:12:19.358,0:12:26.165
tangents or examples. And people use these[br]a lot. Matter of fact, I like to think of

0:12:26.165,0:12:32.158
a general trick that people use called the[br]trick of excess verbiage. A lot of people

0:12:32.158,0:12:37.938
talk too much and they keep saying things[br]over and over again, go off on tangents,

0:12:37.938,0:12:43.646
and give more examples than they really[br]need. And all of that is a way of hiding

0:12:43.646,0:12:49.282
the problem with their position. It's a[br]trick to use too many words because the

0:12:49.282,0:12:55.151
real point gets lost in the middle of[br]those words. So, you can fool people by

0:12:55.151,0:13:02.320
throwing in those extra words. That's the[br]trick of excess verbiage but be careful.

0:13:02.320,0:13:07.615
What seems like excess verbiage that's[br]just there to trick you might really be an

0:13:07.615,0:13:12.513
essential part of the argument. So what[br]you need to do when you have a passage and

0:13:12.513,0:13:17.352
you're trying to get the argument out of[br]it, is to cross out all the exc ess words

0:13:17.352,0:13:22.094
but also look at what's left over. If[br]what's left over is enough premises and

0:13:22.094,0:13:27.039
conclusion to make a good argument, then[br]the stuff that you crossed out probably

0:13:27.039,0:13:31.862
really is excess. But if it turns out that[br]what's left over is not a very good

0:13:31.862,0:13:37.117
argument, to autocheck all those words you[br]crossed out and make sure they really

0:13:37.117,0:13:41.444
weren't necessary. Cuz you're not being[br]fair to the person that you're

0:13:41.444,0:13:46.143
interpreting if you crossed out something[br]that was an essential part of the

0:13:46.143,0:13:51.823
argument. And some cases are going to be[br]tricky. Its not going to be clear whether

0:13:51.823,0:13:57.840
or not to cross the noun. Some small words[br]that are tricky are guarding terms. Here

0:13:57.840,0:14:03.490
is an example. I think Miranda is at home[br]so we can meet her there. What's the

0:14:03.490,0:14:09.433
guarding word? You already found that out[br]when you did the close analysis, right? I

0:14:09.433,0:14:15.524
think. Now, one way to read this argument[br]is that the premises I think Miranda is at

0:14:15.524,0:14:20.848
home and the conclusion is we can meet her[br]there. But that's kind of weird because

0:14:20.848,0:14:25.478
the fact that you think she is at home is[br]not what makes it true that you can meet

0:14:25.478,0:14:28.811
her there, it's the fact that she is at[br]home that can make it the case that you

0:14:28.811,0:14:32.840
can meet her there. So, if the premise is[br]about what you think, and the conclusion

0:14:32.840,0:14:37.302
is about where she is and where you can[br]meet her, then the argument doesn't make

0:14:37.302,0:14:42.423
any sense. So, in this case, what we want[br]to do is to cross out the words I think,

0:14:42.423,0:14:47.395
because that's going to make the argument[br]silly and the argument really amounts to,

0:14:47.395,0:14:52.242
Miranda is at home, so we can meet her[br]there. And the I think covers that whole

0:14:52.242,0:14:57.276
thing. It's saying, I think she's at home,[br]so I think we can meet her there. But the

0:14:57.276,0:15:02.751
argument doesn't involve some premise[br]about what your thoughts are and contrast

0:15:02.751,0:15:08.741
this with a different argument. Miranda is[br]at home, so we can probably meet her

0:15:08.741,0:15:15.174
there. Now, there's another guarding term,[br]right? Probably. Can you get rid of that?

0:15:15.174,0:15:20.062
Well, then the argument becomes Miranda is[br]at home, so we can meet her there. But

0:15:20.062,0:15:24.527
that's clearly not what the speaker was[br]trying to say, if they included the word

0:15:24.527,0:15:27.373
probab ly.[br]They realized that the fact that she's at

0:15:27.373,0:15:31.837
home right now doesn't mean that we can[br]meet her there because it might take us

0:15:31.837,0:15:36.301
awhile to get there and she might leave[br]while we're on the way. So, it's not fair

0:15:36.301,0:15:40.989
to the person giving the argument. And it[br]makes the argument look worse to cross out

0:15:40.989,0:15:45.617
the word, probably. So, in that case, you[br]want to keep the guarding term in order to

0:15:45.617,0:15:50.542
properly represent the force of the[br]argument. So, it looks like sometimes, you

0:15:50.542,0:15:55.533
need to keep the guarding terms and[br]sometimes, you need to cross them out. And

0:15:55.533,0:16:00.588
there's not going to be any strict rule[br]that you can follow. You have to use your

0:16:00.588,0:16:05.578
sense of what's going to make the argument[br]as good as possible. What's going to fit

0:16:05.578,0:16:11.810
what the speaker was really trying to say.[br]Another tricky case is assuring terms.

0:16:11.810,0:16:17.086
Suppose I'm writing a letter of[br]recommendation and I say, he is clearly a

0:16:17.086,0:16:24.900
great worker. I know that. So, you ought[br]to hire him. The assuring terms are

0:16:24.900,0:16:31.528
clearly and I know that. But now, the[br]question is, is the argument really first

0:16:31.528,0:16:37.041
premise, he's clearly a great worker.[br]Second premise, I know that. Conclusion,

0:16:37.041,0:16:41.966
you ought to hire him. It's kind of weird.[br]Again, if you think about it, cuz you're

0:16:41.966,0:16:46.555
not hiring him because it's clear. If he's[br]a great worker but it's not clear that

0:16:46.555,0:16:50.974
he's a great worker, then you're still[br]ought to hire him because he is a great

0:16:50.974,0:16:55.506
worker. Or if he's a great worker and I[br]don't know he's a great worker, you still

0:16:55.506,0:17:00.209
ought to hire him cuz he's a great worker.[br]The fact that I know it is irrelevant to

0:17:00.209,0:17:04.798
whether you want to hire him cuz that's[br]about my mental states not his abilities.

0:17:04.798,0:17:09.047
So, that representation of the argument[br]doesn't really capture the force of

0:17:09.047,0:17:14.070
somebody who writes this letter of[br]recommendation. So, we can cross out the

0:17:14.070,0:17:19.897
words I know that and we can cross out[br]clearly, and then the argument is he's a

0:17:19.897,0:17:27.258
great worker so you ought to hire him. But[br]contrast this example. I am certain that

0:17:27.258,0:17:33.928
Jacob is cheating on his wife, so I ougt[br]to tell her. Now, you might think I am

0:17:33.928,0:17:38.017
certain that is just another assuring term[br]so we can cross it ou t.

0:17:38.017,0:17:42.912
And then, the real argument is Jacob is[br]cheating on his wife so I ought to tell

0:17:42.912,0:17:48.602
her. But now, think about that argument.[br]The mere fact that he's cheating on his

0:17:48.602,0:17:53.207
wife doesn't mean I ought to tell her if[br]I'm not certain cuz if I have some

0:17:53.207,0:17:57.932
suspicions or I'm just guessing, but I[br]really don't know, then I probably ought

0:17:57.932,0:18:02.883
not to tell Jacob's wife that, you know,[br]Jacob was cheating on her. So here, the

0:18:02.883,0:18:09.161
force of the argument, does seem to depend[br]on my certainty. If I'm not certain, I

0:18:09.161,0:18:14.162
shouldn't tell her. If I am certain, maybe[br]I should. So, we can't cross out the

0:18:14.162,0:18:19.405
assuring term in this case cuz that would[br]distort the argument. And, of course, some

0:18:19.405,0:18:23.165
people might disagree with that. They[br]might say, well, look, if you have some

0:18:23.165,0:18:27.143
reason but your not certain then you ought[br]to tell her and that could be

0:18:27.143,0:18:32.335
controversial. But we're talking here not[br]about what those people think but what the

0:18:32.335,0:18:37.061
speaker thinks, the person giving this[br]argument when this person said,"I'm I'm

0:18:37.061,0:18:41.667
certain that Jacob is cheating on his[br]wife." They seemed to indicate that to

0:18:41.667,0:18:46.465
them, the fact that they are certain[br]provides an even better reason why he

0:18:46.465,0:18:51.526
should tell Jacob's wife. So, if we want[br]to capture what the person giving the

0:18:51.526,0:18:56.955
argument intended in this case, we have to[br]leave them the assuring term. So, you're

0:18:56.955,0:19:01.481
seeing one example, where you ought to get[br]rid of the assuring terms. And another

0:19:01.481,0:19:05.712
example, where you ought to keep the[br]reassuring terms. And just like with

0:19:05.712,0:19:10.899
guarding terms the same point applies.[br]There is no mechanic rule that will apply

0:19:10.899,0:19:16.152
to every case. You have to think through[br]the argument and decide whether crossing

0:19:16.152,0:19:21.664
out those words and removing them distorts[br]the argument or instead, crossing them out

0:19:21.664,0:19:26.398
makes the argument look even better[br]because the point of removing excess

0:19:26.398,0:19:31.845
verbiage is to get rid of the things that[br]aren't necessary but keep everything that

0:19:31.845,0:19:37.880
is necessary to make the argument look as[br]good as it possibly can look. Finally,

0:19:37.880,0:19:42.944
once we've removed all the excess[br]verbiage, what's left over? The answer is

0:19:42.944,0:19:46.617
the explicit premises and conclusion in[br]the argume nt.

0:19:46.621,0:19:52.379
The point of removing the excess verbiage[br]was to separate those essential parts of

0:19:52.379,0:19:58.096
the argument, those basics of the argument[br]from all the stuff that's unnecessary. Of

0:19:58.096,0:20:02.194
course, we still have to decide which ones[br]are premises and which ones the

0:20:02.194,0:20:06.515
conclusion, right? And that's why the[br]close analysis helps because we indicated

0:20:06.515,0:20:11.167
which ones were reason markers and which[br]ones were conclusion markers and that lets

0:20:11.167,0:20:15.875
you to identify that these are the[br]premises and that's the conclusion. And so

0:20:16.152,0:20:20.251
now, we can do step three. We can put the[br]argument standard form. We put the

0:20:20.251,0:20:25.330
premises above the line and we put dot[br]pyramid, and then the conclusion below the

0:20:25.330,0:20:30.451
line. And we've got the argument in[br]standard form, which completes stage two

0:20:30.451,0:20:35.371
of the reconstruction project. At this[br]point, it's useful to look back at the

0:20:35.371,0:20:40.427
passage and see whether you've gotten rid[br]off all the excess included all of the

0:20:40.427,0:20:45.171
basics of the argument. So, you can look[br]at the passage and say, is everything

0:20:45.171,0:20:50.165
that's not crossed out in a premise or a[br]conclusion of the standard form. And if

0:20:50.165,0:20:55.283
there's something that's still there in[br]the passage that isn't used, you've got to

0:20:55.283,0:21:00.027
decide at that point is it really excess[br]or not. And, of course, if the argument

0:21:00.027,0:21:04.685
looks really bad, you've got to look back[br]and see whether it's missing something

0:21:04.685,0:21:09.461
that you had crossed out as being excess[br]verbiage when it really was an essential

0:21:09.461,0:21:14.178
part of the argument. So, we can use this[br]process of putting it into standard form

0:21:14.178,0:21:19.287
as a test of whether we've performed[br]properly the other step of getting rid of

0:21:19.287,0:21:25.426
excess verbiage. So, steps two and three[br]really work together in this stage two of

0:21:25.426,0:21:31.337
getting down to basics. That's what helps[br]us to use the different parts to see

0:21:31.337,0:21:34.445
whether we've done each of them properly.