1 00:00:02,700 --> 00:00:06,953 Now that we understand validity, we can use the notion of validity in 2 00:00:06,953 --> 00:00:12,009 reconstructing arguments. Now, the point of reconstructing an argument is to put it 3 00:00:12,009 --> 00:00:17,064 in a shape that makes it easier for us to assess the argument more accurately and 4 00:00:17,064 --> 00:00:22,105 fairly for whether it's a good argument or a bad argument. And when we do the 5 00:00:22,105 --> 00:00:26,726 reconstruction, remember, you want to make it as good an argument as possible because 6 00:00:26,726 --> 00:00:31,237 you don't learn anything from putting down your enemies by making them look silly, 7 00:00:31,237 --> 00:00:35,804 right? If you want to learn from somebody else's argument, you need to put it in the 8 00:00:35,804 --> 00:00:40,326 best shape you can to make it look as good as possible. So, that's going to be the 9 00:00:40,326 --> 00:00:45,466 goal of reconstruction. And we are going to accomplish that goal in a series of 10 00:00:45,466 --> 00:00:50,541 stages. The first stage simply to do a close analysis and we talked about that 11 00:00:50,541 --> 00:00:55,617 last week. The second stage is to get down to basics. That is to remove all the 12 00:00:55,617 --> 00:01:00,301 excess words and focus on the premises and conclusions that really make up the 13 00:01:00,301 --> 00:01:05,508 argument and then put those into standard form. The third stage is to clarify those 14 00:01:05,508 --> 00:01:09,627 premises. They're not always going to be as clear as you like and that's going to 15 00:01:09,985 --> 00:01:14,522 take some work and it's going to include breaking them into parts. And then, the 16 00:01:14,522 --> 00:01:19,058 next stage is to take those parts and organize them, to put them in order, so 17 00:01:19,058 --> 00:01:24,493 you can see how the argument flows from one part to another. But not all arguments 18 00:01:24,493 --> 00:01:29,584 are complete so the next stage, we have to fill in the gaps, that is supply 19 00:01:29,584 --> 00:01:34,765 suppressed premises. And once we've done that, then the final stage is going to be 20 00:01:34,765 --> 00:01:39,069 assess the argument. If we are able to come up with a sound reconstruction, we 21 00:01:39,069 --> 00:01:43,934 know that the conclusion has to be true. Because as we learned in the previous 22 00:01:43,934 --> 00:01:48,824 lecture, the conclusion of sound arguments is always true. But if we don't come up 23 00:01:48,824 --> 00:01:53,050 with a sound reconstruction, then we've got to decide, is it the fault of the 24 00:01:53,050 --> 00:01:57,832 argument or is it our own fault because we didn't come up with a sound reconstruction 25 00:01:57,832 --> 00:02:01,780 when there really is one that we didn't find. So, that's going to be something we 26 00:02:01,780 --> 00:02:05,839 have to discuss. We're g oing to discuss all of these stages over the next few 27 00:02:05,839 --> 00:02:10,304 lectures. Now, the first stage of reconstruction is to do a close analysis. 28 00:02:10,304 --> 00:02:15,322 But we already learned how to do that, that was easy. Boy, I hope the rest of 29 00:02:15,322 --> 00:02:20,880 them are that easy. This lecture is mainly going to be about the second stage, namely 30 00:02:20,880 --> 00:02:26,233 getting down to basics. And what we want to do is to pull out the explicit premise 31 00:02:26,233 --> 00:02:31,873 and conclusion from all the other words around it. And the first step is to remove 32 00:02:31,873 --> 00:02:36,786 all the excess verbiage. You know, it might seem very surprising but people 33 00:02:36,786 --> 00:02:41,632 often repeat themselves, I'm sure you've all run into it. I mean, you listen to 34 00:02:41,632 --> 00:02:47,141 somebody give a, a talk and it takes them fifty minutes to say what they could have 35 00:02:47,141 --> 00:02:52,651 said easily in five minutes and one of the reasons is that they say everything ten 36 00:02:52,651 --> 00:02:57,051 times. You know, for instance, people often say the same thing twice, they 37 00:02:57,051 --> 00:03:02,160 repeat themselves. They say the same thing over again and they restate the point in 38 00:03:02,160 --> 00:03:07,023 different words and they utter sentences that mean the same thing. And they say 39 00:03:07,023 --> 00:03:12,071 something and then, you know, they say it again and they make a claim twice or more. 40 00:03:12,071 --> 00:03:17,303 They exert exactly what they just said and they reformulate their claim in different 41 00:03:17,303 --> 00:03:22,104 words that are equivalent. They say it once and then, they say it again, you get 42 00:03:22,104 --> 00:03:27,610 the idea. Now, here is a real example from a US politician during a debate. I'm going 43 00:03:27,040 --> 00:03:34,457 to be honest with people, we can't eliminate this deficit. People have heard 44 00:03:34,457 --> 00:03:42,160 that over and over again in four years, we cannot do it, we're in too deep a hole. 45 00:03:43,380 --> 00:03:49,404 Now, if you think about it, it's going to be obvious that we cannot do it. Repeats, 46 00:03:49,404 --> 00:03:54,895 we can't eliminate this deficit, cuz that's what it's doing, it is eliminating 47 00:03:54,895 --> 00:04:00,733 the deficit. But also, we're in too deep a hole. Well, that's just a metaphorical way 48 00:04:00,733 --> 00:04:05,805 of saying the same thing. Why is the hole too deep? Because we can't get out of it. 49 00:04:05,805 --> 00:04:10,688 What hole is it? It's the deficit hole. So, to say we can't get out of this hole, 50 00:04:10,688 --> 00:04:15,446 we're in too deep a hole. It's just another way of saying we can't eliminate 51 00:04:15,446 --> 00:04:20,330 the deficit. So, in these three lin es, he's already repeated himself three times. 52 00:04:20,330 --> 00:04:24,856 Now, why does this politician repeat himself? It might be that he thinks people 53 00:04:24,856 --> 00:04:29,498 will remember it better or one version will make more sense than another. But he 54 00:04:29,498 --> 00:04:34,489 might have a special reason cuz this was a live debate and he had to give a 90-second 55 00:04:34,489 --> 00:04:39,131 answer. So, he had to fill up the time. Sometimes people repeat themselves just to 56 00:04:39,131 --> 00:04:43,890 fill up the time or maybe to give himself time to think cuz he didn't have a real 57 00:04:43,890 --> 00:04:48,474 answer ready yet and repeating himself is easy while he thinks about what he's 58 00:04:48,474 --> 00:04:52,818 really going to say in the next few sentences. Fine. But repeating it still 59 00:04:52,818 --> 00:04:58,232 doesn't make the argument any better and we want to get down to the basics of the 60 00:04:58,232 --> 00:05:04,043 argument that is the parts of the argument that really affect how good it is, so we 61 00:05:04,043 --> 00:05:09,589 can cross out those repetitions that don't make the argument any better. So first, we 62 00:05:09,589 --> 00:05:15,041 can cross out we cannot do it. Then, we can cross out, we're in too deep a hole. 63 00:05:15,041 --> 00:05:20,139 We already saw that those are just repeating the claim that we can't 64 00:05:20,139 --> 00:05:26,270 eliminate the deficit. In addition, we can cross out, I want to be honest with people 65 00:05:26,270 --> 00:05:32,084 because that's not a reason to believe we're in too deep a deficit. And next, we 66 00:05:32,084 --> 00:05:37,922 can cross out that people have heard that over and over again in four years. Well, 67 00:05:37,922 --> 00:05:43,977 that might be seen as a reason to believe that we're in a deficit because everybody 68 00:05:43,977 --> 00:05:49,743 seems to say it, but let's assume that's not part of his argument here and we'll 69 00:05:49,743 --> 00:05:55,746 cross it out. Now, let's move on. A second form of excess verbiage that is words that 70 00:05:55,746 --> 00:06:00,861 don't contribute to the force of the argument is what I like to call road 71 00:06:00,861 --> 00:06:05,846 markers. A lot of times, people, you know, good speakers, they tell you what topic 72 00:06:05,846 --> 00:06:11,026 they are talking about and why they are talking about it. Why it's important and 73 00:06:11,026 --> 00:06:16,270 worth talking about. But to say why it's an important issue and to say what issue 74 00:06:16,270 --> 00:06:21,384 it is, doesn't provide any reason to believe that what they say about the issue 75 00:06:21,384 --> 00:06:25,834 is true or false. So, it doesn't contribute to the argument. Here's an 76 00:06:25,834 --> 00:06:30,875 example from the same politician in the same debate as we j ust saw. This 77 00:06:30,875 --> 00:06:37,193 politician said, now, I want to go back to the whole issue of healthcare, because we 78 00:06:37,193 --> 00:06:43,049 touched it, and I think the American people deserve to know what we would do 79 00:06:43,049 --> 00:06:48,399 different. And notice that he says, he's going to talk about healthcare but he 80 00:06:48,399 --> 00:06:53,273 doesn't say anything about healthcare. He didn't tell you what he's going to say 81 00:06:53,273 --> 00:06:58,273 about healthcare. All he says is he wants to go back to that issue. And he tells you 82 00:06:58,273 --> 00:07:03,522 why he wants to go back to that issue. But he doesn't add any reason to believe that 83 00:07:03,522 --> 00:07:08,020 what he's about to say about the issue is true. Now, this can, of course, still be 84 00:07:08,020 --> 00:07:12,702 useful because you might get confused about what the issue is and he might be 85 00:07:12,702 --> 00:07:17,743 changing the topic and he wants to signal that he is changing the topic, and that 86 00:07:17,263 --> 00:07:22,005 will help his listeners. But it still doesn't add to the argument, it doesn't 87 00:07:22,005 --> 00:07:26,506 give you any reason for the conclusion that he's going to want to draw. We can 88 00:07:26,506 --> 00:07:31,368 cross out these excess words. we can cross out, now, I want to go back to the whole 89 00:07:31,368 --> 00:07:36,109 issue of healthcare because that doesn't show that his views on healthcare are 90 00:07:36,109 --> 00:07:40,451 correct. And we can cross out because we touched it. That's a reason why we're 91 00:07:40,451 --> 00:07:44,760 going to that issue, but again, that doesn't give any reason why his views are 92 00:07:44,760 --> 00:07:49,404 correct. And we can even cross out, but I think the American people deserve to know 93 00:07:49,404 --> 00:07:53,993 what we would do different because the fact that they deserve to know what you're 94 00:07:53,993 --> 00:07:58,246 going to do doesn't show that what you're going to do is the right thing to do. So, 95 00:07:58,246 --> 00:08:02,667 none of these claims are really reasons that are going to be reasons for the main 96 00:08:02,667 --> 00:08:07,256 part of his argument, which is to support the particular views on healthcare that 97 00:08:07,256 --> 00:08:12,182 he's going to tell you about a few seconds after this. The next type of excess 98 00:08:12,182 --> 00:08:18,920 verbiage is tangents. People go off on tangents all the time. Here's an example. 99 00:08:19,580 --> 00:08:24,224 You know, you really ought to think about taking a History course. I, I still 100 00:08:24,224 --> 00:08:29,179 remember my History courses in college. There was this one time when, there was a 101 00:08:29,179 --> 00:08:34,010 dog that one of the students brought to class and, and the dog like barked and 102 00:08:34,010 --> 00:08:38,593 then he ran up on stage and he, he cut under the professor and knocked the 103 00:08:38,593 --> 00:08:43,671 professor on his rear-end. It was really funny. So, you know, I think that History 104 00:08:43,671 --> 00:08:49,339 is a good thing to study. Now, notice that all this stuff about the dog has nothing 105 00:08:49,339 --> 00:08:54,465 to do with History. It's no reason to take a History course instead of a Philosophy 106 00:08:54,465 --> 00:08:59,343 course or a Classics course or a Science course. The same thing could happen in 107 00:08:59,343 --> 00:09:03,975 those courses just as well. So, the tangent plays a certain role. It makes it 108 00:09:03,975 --> 00:09:08,730 interesting. It keeps your attention. Maybe it makes it memorable for you, what 109 00:09:08,730 --> 00:09:13,732 he said. But it doesn't actually provide a reason why you ought to take a History 110 00:09:13,732 --> 00:09:20,428 course. So, since those parts of the words were just a tangent that don't provide any 111 00:09:20,428 --> 00:09:26,546 reason we can cross them out, too, because they are excess verbiage. But sometimes, 112 00:09:26,546 --> 00:09:32,253 people go off on irrelevant tangents. Not just by accident because they lose their 113 00:09:32,253 --> 00:09:37,404 train of thought, but because they're trying to fool you. They're trying to 114 00:09:37,404 --> 00:09:42,983 produce what is called a red herring. The name red hearing supposedly comes from 115 00:09:42,983 --> 00:09:48,322 somebody who crossed the red herring over the trail and then the hound couldn't 116 00:09:48,322 --> 00:09:53,394 track its scent anymore. And that's basically what's going on here. Sometimes, 117 00:09:53,394 --> 00:09:58,866 people produce tangents that distracts you from the main line of argument because 118 00:09:58,866 --> 00:10:03,871 they know that there are weaknesses in that line of argument and they don't want 119 00:10:03,871 --> 00:10:08,659 you to notice them. That's what a red herring is. And it's a type of tangent 120 00:10:08,659 --> 00:10:14,249 that you have to learn to watch out for. Because if you want to see the problems in 121 00:10:14,249 --> 00:10:19,908 your opponent's arguments or even in your friend's arguments, then you need to not 122 00:10:19,908 --> 00:10:26,143 get distracted by tangents that are in effect red herrings. Yet, another example 123 00:10:26,143 --> 00:10:33,872 of excess verbiage is, well, examples. Here's an example of that. A different 124 00:10:33,872 --> 00:10:40,330 politician in the same debate said this. Here's what happened. In the time that 125 00:10:40,330 --> 00:10:46,939 they have been in office in the last four years, 1.6 million private sector jobs 126 00:10:46,939 --> 00:10:53,622 have been lost, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. And it's had real 127 00:10:53,622 --> 00:10:59,277 consequences in places like Cle veland. Cleveland is a wonderful distinguished 128 00:10:59,277 --> 00:11:05,151 city. It's done a lot of great things, but it has the highest poverty rate in the 129 00:11:05,151 --> 00:11:12,174 country. One out of almost two children in Cleveland are now living in poverty. Now, 130 00:11:12,174 --> 00:11:18,310 notice that this politician is talking about the unemployment rate in the rest of 131 00:11:18,310 --> 00:11:23,619 the country, in the country as a whole. So, why bring in Cleveland? Well, you 132 00:11:23,619 --> 00:11:28,357 might be saying that Cleveland shows that there's problems throughout the rest of 133 00:11:28,357 --> 00:11:32,863 the country, but that can't be right because Cleveland is just one example. And 134 00:11:32,863 --> 00:11:37,081 it might be an outlier that doesn't represent the general trends. So, what 135 00:11:37,081 --> 00:11:41,587 he's doing with this example is he's trying to bring it down the home, and make 136 00:11:41,587 --> 00:11:45,983 you feel for the real effects. But he doesn't come out and say that you can 137 00:11:45,983 --> 00:11:50,861 generalize from Cleveland to the rest of the country, or that everyone else is 138 00:11:50,861 --> 00:11:55,427 suffering in exactly the same way. He's just giving one example. And so, it 139 00:11:55,427 --> 00:12:00,181 doesn't really support his general claim that the unemployment is a problem 140 00:12:00,181 --> 00:12:05,859 throughout the whole country. That means that it's not an extra premise in the 141 00:12:05,859 --> 00:12:12,695 argument and we can cross it out like other forms of excess verbiage. Now, we've 142 00:12:12,695 --> 00:12:19,358 seen that excess verbiage can take the form of repetition or road markers or 143 00:12:19,358 --> 00:12:26,165 tangents or examples. And people use these a lot. Matter of fact, I like to think of 144 00:12:26,165 --> 00:12:32,158 a general trick that people use called the trick of excess verbiage. A lot of people 145 00:12:32,158 --> 00:12:37,938 talk too much and they keep saying things over and over again, go off on tangents, 146 00:12:37,938 --> 00:12:43,646 and give more examples than they really need. And all of that is a way of hiding 147 00:12:43,646 --> 00:12:49,282 the problem with their position. It's a trick to use too many words because the 148 00:12:49,282 --> 00:12:55,151 real point gets lost in the middle of those words. So, you can fool people by 149 00:12:55,151 --> 00:13:02,320 throwing in those extra words. That's the trick of excess verbiage but be careful. 150 00:13:02,320 --> 00:13:07,615 What seems like excess verbiage that's just there to trick you might really be an 151 00:13:07,615 --> 00:13:12,513 essential part of the argument. So what you need to do when you have a passage and 152 00:13:12,513 --> 00:13:17,352 you're trying to get the argument out of it, is to cross out all the exc ess words 153 00:13:17,352 --> 00:13:22,094 but also look at what's left over. If what's left over is enough premises and 154 00:13:22,094 --> 00:13:27,039 conclusion to make a good argument, then the stuff that you crossed out probably 155 00:13:27,039 --> 00:13:31,862 really is excess. But if it turns out that what's left over is not a very good 156 00:13:31,862 --> 00:13:37,117 argument, to autocheck all those words you crossed out and make sure they really 157 00:13:37,117 --> 00:13:41,444 weren't necessary. Cuz you're not being fair to the person that you're 158 00:13:41,444 --> 00:13:46,143 interpreting if you crossed out something that was an essential part of the 159 00:13:46,143 --> 00:13:51,823 argument. And some cases are going to be tricky. Its not going to be clear whether 160 00:13:51,823 --> 00:13:57,840 or not to cross the noun. Some small words that are tricky are guarding terms. Here 161 00:13:57,840 --> 00:14:03,490 is an example. I think Miranda is at home so we can meet her there. What's the 162 00:14:03,490 --> 00:14:09,433 guarding word? You already found that out when you did the close analysis, right? I 163 00:14:09,433 --> 00:14:15,524 think. Now, one way to read this argument is that the premises I think Miranda is at 164 00:14:15,524 --> 00:14:20,848 home and the conclusion is we can meet her there. But that's kind of weird because 165 00:14:20,848 --> 00:14:25,478 the fact that you think she is at home is not what makes it true that you can meet 166 00:14:25,478 --> 00:14:28,811 her there, it's the fact that she is at home that can make it the case that you 167 00:14:28,811 --> 00:14:32,840 can meet her there. So, if the premise is about what you think, and the conclusion 168 00:14:32,840 --> 00:14:37,302 is about where she is and where you can meet her, then the argument doesn't make 169 00:14:37,302 --> 00:14:42,423 any sense. So, in this case, what we want to do is to cross out the words I think, 170 00:14:42,423 --> 00:14:47,395 because that's going to make the argument silly and the argument really amounts to, 171 00:14:47,395 --> 00:14:52,242 Miranda is at home, so we can meet her there. And the I think covers that whole 172 00:14:52,242 --> 00:14:57,276 thing. It's saying, I think she's at home, so I think we can meet her there. But the 173 00:14:57,276 --> 00:15:02,751 argument doesn't involve some premise about what your thoughts are and contrast 174 00:15:02,751 --> 00:15:08,741 this with a different argument. Miranda is at home, so we can probably meet her 175 00:15:08,741 --> 00:15:15,174 there. Now, there's another guarding term, right? Probably. Can you get rid of that? 176 00:15:15,174 --> 00:15:20,062 Well, then the argument becomes Miranda is at home, so we can meet her there. But 177 00:15:20,062 --> 00:15:24,527 that's clearly not what the speaker was trying to say, if they included the word 178 00:15:24,527 --> 00:15:27,373 probab ly. They realized that the fact that she's at 179 00:15:27,373 --> 00:15:31,837 home right now doesn't mean that we can meet her there because it might take us 180 00:15:31,837 --> 00:15:36,301 awhile to get there and she might leave while we're on the way. So, it's not fair 181 00:15:36,301 --> 00:15:40,989 to the person giving the argument. And it makes the argument look worse to cross out 182 00:15:40,989 --> 00:15:45,617 the word, probably. So, in that case, you want to keep the guarding term in order to 183 00:15:45,617 --> 00:15:50,542 properly represent the force of the argument. So, it looks like sometimes, you 184 00:15:50,542 --> 00:15:55,533 need to keep the guarding terms and sometimes, you need to cross them out. And 185 00:15:55,533 --> 00:16:00,588 there's not going to be any strict rule that you can follow. You have to use your 186 00:16:00,588 --> 00:16:05,578 sense of what's going to make the argument as good as possible. What's going to fit 187 00:16:05,578 --> 00:16:11,810 what the speaker was really trying to say. Another tricky case is assuring terms. 188 00:16:11,810 --> 00:16:17,086 Suppose I'm writing a letter of recommendation and I say, he is clearly a 189 00:16:17,086 --> 00:16:24,900 great worker. I know that. So, you ought to hire him. The assuring terms are 190 00:16:24,900 --> 00:16:31,528 clearly and I know that. But now, the question is, is the argument really first 191 00:16:31,528 --> 00:16:37,041 premise, he's clearly a great worker. Second premise, I know that. Conclusion, 192 00:16:37,041 --> 00:16:41,966 you ought to hire him. It's kind of weird. Again, if you think about it, cuz you're 193 00:16:41,966 --> 00:16:46,555 not hiring him because it's clear. If he's a great worker but it's not clear that 194 00:16:46,555 --> 00:16:50,974 he's a great worker, then you're still ought to hire him because he is a great 195 00:16:50,974 --> 00:16:55,506 worker. Or if he's a great worker and I don't know he's a great worker, you still 196 00:16:55,506 --> 00:17:00,209 ought to hire him cuz he's a great worker. The fact that I know it is irrelevant to 197 00:17:00,209 --> 00:17:04,798 whether you want to hire him cuz that's about my mental states not his abilities. 198 00:17:04,798 --> 00:17:09,047 So, that representation of the argument doesn't really capture the force of 199 00:17:09,047 --> 00:17:14,070 somebody who writes this letter of recommendation. So, we can cross out the 200 00:17:14,070 --> 00:17:19,897 words I know that and we can cross out clearly, and then the argument is he's a 201 00:17:19,897 --> 00:17:27,258 great worker so you ought to hire him. But contrast this example. I am certain that 202 00:17:27,258 --> 00:17:33,928 Jacob is cheating on his wife, so I ougt to tell her. Now, you might think I am 203 00:17:33,928 --> 00:17:38,017 certain that is just another assuring term so we can cross it ou t. 204 00:17:38,017 --> 00:17:42,912 And then, the real argument is Jacob is cheating on his wife so I ought to tell 205 00:17:42,912 --> 00:17:48,602 her. But now, think about that argument. The mere fact that he's cheating on his 206 00:17:48,602 --> 00:17:53,207 wife doesn't mean I ought to tell her if I'm not certain cuz if I have some 207 00:17:53,207 --> 00:17:57,932 suspicions or I'm just guessing, but I really don't know, then I probably ought 208 00:17:57,932 --> 00:18:02,883 not to tell Jacob's wife that, you know, Jacob was cheating on her. So here, the 209 00:18:02,883 --> 00:18:09,161 force of the argument, does seem to depend on my certainty. If I'm not certain, I 210 00:18:09,161 --> 00:18:14,162 shouldn't tell her. If I am certain, maybe I should. So, we can't cross out the 211 00:18:14,162 --> 00:18:19,405 assuring term in this case cuz that would distort the argument. And, of course, some 212 00:18:19,405 --> 00:18:23,165 people might disagree with that. They might say, well, look, if you have some 213 00:18:23,165 --> 00:18:27,143 reason but your not certain then you ought to tell her and that could be 214 00:18:27,143 --> 00:18:32,335 controversial. But we're talking here not about what those people think but what the 215 00:18:32,335 --> 00:18:37,061 speaker thinks, the person giving this argument when this person said,"I'm I'm 216 00:18:37,061 --> 00:18:41,667 certain that Jacob is cheating on his wife." They seemed to indicate that to 217 00:18:41,667 --> 00:18:46,465 them, the fact that they are certain provides an even better reason why he 218 00:18:46,465 --> 00:18:51,526 should tell Jacob's wife. So, if we want to capture what the person giving the 219 00:18:51,526 --> 00:18:56,955 argument intended in this case, we have to leave them the assuring term. So, you're 220 00:18:56,955 --> 00:19:01,481 seeing one example, where you ought to get rid of the assuring terms. And another 221 00:19:01,481 --> 00:19:05,712 example, where you ought to keep the reassuring terms. And just like with 222 00:19:05,712 --> 00:19:10,899 guarding terms the same point applies. There is no mechanic rule that will apply 223 00:19:10,899 --> 00:19:16,152 to every case. You have to think through the argument and decide whether crossing 224 00:19:16,152 --> 00:19:21,664 out those words and removing them distorts the argument or instead, crossing them out 225 00:19:21,664 --> 00:19:26,398 makes the argument look even better because the point of removing excess 226 00:19:26,398 --> 00:19:31,845 verbiage is to get rid of the things that aren't necessary but keep everything that 227 00:19:31,845 --> 00:19:37,880 is necessary to make the argument look as good as it possibly can look. Finally, 228 00:19:37,880 --> 00:19:42,944 once we've removed all the excess verbiage, what's left over? The answer is 229 00:19:42,944 --> 00:19:46,617 the explicit premises and conclusion in the argume nt. 230 00:19:46,621 --> 00:19:52,379 The point of removing the excess verbiage was to separate those essential parts of 231 00:19:52,379 --> 00:19:58,096 the argument, those basics of the argument from all the stuff that's unnecessary. Of 232 00:19:58,096 --> 00:20:02,194 course, we still have to decide which ones are premises and which ones the 233 00:20:02,194 --> 00:20:06,515 conclusion, right? And that's why the close analysis helps because we indicated 234 00:20:06,515 --> 00:20:11,167 which ones were reason markers and which ones were conclusion markers and that lets 235 00:20:11,167 --> 00:20:15,875 you to identify that these are the premises and that's the conclusion. And so 236 00:20:16,152 --> 00:20:20,251 now, we can do step three. We can put the argument standard form. We put the 237 00:20:20,251 --> 00:20:25,330 premises above the line and we put dot pyramid, and then the conclusion below the 238 00:20:25,330 --> 00:20:30,451 line. And we've got the argument in standard form, which completes stage two 239 00:20:30,451 --> 00:20:35,371 of the reconstruction project. At this point, it's useful to look back at the 240 00:20:35,371 --> 00:20:40,427 passage and see whether you've gotten rid off all the excess included all of the 241 00:20:40,427 --> 00:20:45,171 basics of the argument. So, you can look at the passage and say, is everything 242 00:20:45,171 --> 00:20:50,165 that's not crossed out in a premise or a conclusion of the standard form. And if 243 00:20:50,165 --> 00:20:55,283 there's something that's still there in the passage that isn't used, you've got to 244 00:20:55,283 --> 00:21:00,027 decide at that point is it really excess or not. And, of course, if the argument 245 00:21:00,027 --> 00:21:04,685 looks really bad, you've got to look back and see whether it's missing something 246 00:21:04,685 --> 00:21:09,461 that you had crossed out as being excess verbiage when it really was an essential 247 00:21:09,461 --> 00:21:14,178 part of the argument. So, we can use this process of putting it into standard form 248 00:21:14,178 --> 00:21:19,287 as a test of whether we've performed properly the other step of getting rid of 249 00:21:19,287 --> 00:21:25,426 excess verbiage. So, steps two and three really work together in this stage two of 250 00:21:25,426 --> 00:21:31,337 getting down to basics. That's what helps us to use the different parts to see 251 00:21:31,337 --> 00:21:34,445 whether we've done each of them properly.