[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:02.70,0:00:06.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now that we understand validity, we can\Nuse the notion of validity in
Dialogue: 0,0:00:06.95,0:00:12.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reconstructing arguments. Now, the point\Nof reconstructing an argument is to put it
Dialogue: 0,0:00:12.01,0:00:17.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in a shape that makes it easier for us to\Nassess the argument more accurately and
Dialogue: 0,0:00:17.06,0:00:22.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fairly for whether it's a good argument or\Na bad argument. And when we do the
Dialogue: 0,0:00:22.10,0:00:26.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reconstruction, remember, you want to make\Nit as good an argument as possible because
Dialogue: 0,0:00:26.73,0:00:31.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you don't learn anything from putting down\Nyour enemies by making them look silly,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:31.24,0:00:35.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right? If you want to learn from somebody\Nelse's argument, you need to put it in the
Dialogue: 0,0:00:35.80,0:00:40.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,best shape you can to make it look as good\Nas possible. So, that's going to be the
Dialogue: 0,0:00:40.33,0:00:45.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,goal of reconstruction. And we are going\Nto accomplish that goal in a series of
Dialogue: 0,0:00:45.47,0:00:50.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stages. The first stage simply to do a\Nclose analysis and we talked about that
Dialogue: 0,0:00:50.54,0:00:55.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,last week. The second stage is to get down\Nto basics. That is to remove all the
Dialogue: 0,0:00:55.62,0:01:00.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,excess words and focus on the premises and\Nconclusions that really make up the
Dialogue: 0,0:01:00.30,0:01:05.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument and then put those into standard\Nform. The third stage is to clarify those
Dialogue: 0,0:01:05.51,0:01:09.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premises. They're not always going to be\Nas clear as you like and that's going to
Dialogue: 0,0:01:09.98,0:01:14.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,take some work and it's going to include\Nbreaking them into parts. And then, the
Dialogue: 0,0:01:14.52,0:01:19.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,next stage is to take those parts and\Norganize them, to put them in order, so
Dialogue: 0,0:01:19.06,0:01:24.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you can see how the argument flows from\None part to another. But not all arguments
Dialogue: 0,0:01:24.49,0:01:29.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are complete so the next stage, we have to\Nfill in the gaps, that is supply
Dialogue: 0,0:01:29.58,0:01:34.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,suppressed premises. And once we've done\Nthat, then the final stage is going to be
Dialogue: 0,0:01:34.76,0:01:39.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,assess the argument. If we are able to\Ncome up with a sound reconstruction, we
Dialogue: 0,0:01:39.07,0:01:43.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know that the conclusion has to be true.\NBecause as we learned in the previous
Dialogue: 0,0:01:43.93,0:01:48.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lecture, the conclusion of sound arguments\Nis always true. But if we don't come up
Dialogue: 0,0:01:48.82,0:01:53.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with a sound reconstruction, then we've\Ngot to decide, is it the fault of the
Dialogue: 0,0:01:53.05,0:01:57.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument or is it our own fault because we\Ndidn't come up with a sound reconstruction
Dialogue: 0,0:01:57.83,0:02:01.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when there really is one that we didn't\Nfind. So, that's going to be something we
Dialogue: 0,0:02:01.78,0:02:05.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have to discuss. We're g oing to discuss\Nall of these stages over the next few
Dialogue: 0,0:02:05.84,0:02:10.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lectures. Now, the first stage of\Nreconstruction is to do a close analysis.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:10.30,0:02:15.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But we already learned how to do that,\Nthat was easy. Boy, I hope the rest of
Dialogue: 0,0:02:15.32,0:02:20.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,them are that easy. This lecture is mainly\Ngoing to be about the second stage, namely
Dialogue: 0,0:02:20.88,0:02:26.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,getting down to basics. And what we want\Nto do is to pull out the explicit premise
Dialogue: 0,0:02:26.23,0:02:31.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and conclusion from all the other words\Naround it. And the first step is to remove
Dialogue: 0,0:02:31.87,0:02:36.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,all the excess verbiage. You know, it\Nmight seem very surprising but people
Dialogue: 0,0:02:36.79,0:02:41.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,often repeat themselves, I'm sure you've\Nall run into it. I mean, you listen to
Dialogue: 0,0:02:41.63,0:02:47.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,somebody give a, a talk and it takes them\Nfifty minutes to say what they could have
Dialogue: 0,0:02:47.14,0:02:52.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,said easily in five minutes and one of the\Nreasons is that they say everything ten
Dialogue: 0,0:02:52.65,0:02:57.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,times. You know, for instance, people\Noften say the same thing twice, they
Dialogue: 0,0:02:57.05,0:03:02.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,repeat themselves. They say the same thing\Nover again and they restate the point in
Dialogue: 0,0:03:02.16,0:03:07.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,different words and they utter sentences\Nthat mean the same thing. And they say
Dialogue: 0,0:03:07.02,0:03:12.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,something and then, you know, they say it\Nagain and they make a claim twice or more.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:12.07,0:03:17.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They exert exactly what they just said and\Nthey reformulate their claim in different
Dialogue: 0,0:03:17.30,0:03:22.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,words that are equivalent. They say it\Nonce and then, they say it again, you get
Dialogue: 0,0:03:22.10,0:03:27.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the idea. Now, here is a real example from\Na US politician during a debate. I'm going
Dialogue: 0,0:03:27.04,0:03:34.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to be honest with people, we can't\Neliminate this deficit. People have heard
Dialogue: 0,0:03:34.46,0:03:42.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that over and over again in four years, we\Ncannot do it, we're in too deep a hole.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:43.38,0:03:49.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, if you think about it, it's going to\Nbe obvious that we cannot do it. Repeats,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:49.40,0:03:54.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we can't eliminate this deficit, cuz\Nthat's what it's doing, it is eliminating
Dialogue: 0,0:03:54.90,0:04:00.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the deficit. But also, we're in too deep a\Nhole. Well, that's just a metaphorical way
Dialogue: 0,0:04:00.73,0:04:05.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of saying the same thing. Why is the hole\Ntoo deep? Because we can't get out of it.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:05.80,0:04:10.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What hole is it? It's the deficit hole.\NSo, to say we can't get out of this hole,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:10.69,0:04:15.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we're in too deep a hole. It's just\Nanother way of saying we can't eliminate
Dialogue: 0,0:04:15.45,0:04:20.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the deficit. So, in these three lin es,\Nhe's already repeated himself three times.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:20.33,0:04:24.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, why does this politician repeat\Nhimself? It might be that he thinks people
Dialogue: 0,0:04:24.86,0:04:29.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,will remember it better or one version\Nwill make more sense than another. But he
Dialogue: 0,0:04:29.50,0:04:34.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,might have a special reason cuz this was a\Nlive debate and he had to give a 90-second
Dialogue: 0,0:04:34.49,0:04:39.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,answer. So, he had to fill up the time.\NSometimes people repeat themselves just to
Dialogue: 0,0:04:39.13,0:04:43.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fill up the time or maybe to give himself\Ntime to think cuz he didn't have a real
Dialogue: 0,0:04:43.89,0:04:48.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,answer ready yet and repeating himself is\Neasy while he thinks about what he's
Dialogue: 0,0:04:48.47,0:04:52.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,really going to say in the next few\Nsentences. Fine. But repeating it still
Dialogue: 0,0:04:52.82,0:04:58.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,doesn't make the argument any better and\Nwe want to get down to the basics of the
Dialogue: 0,0:04:58.23,0:05:04.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument that is the parts of the argument\Nthat really affect how good it is, so we
Dialogue: 0,0:05:04.04,0:05:09.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can cross out those repetitions that don't\Nmake the argument any better. So first, we
Dialogue: 0,0:05:09.59,0:05:15.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can cross out we cannot do it. Then, we\Ncan cross out, we're in too deep a hole.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:15.04,0:05:20.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We already saw that those are just\Nrepeating the claim that we can't
Dialogue: 0,0:05:20.14,0:05:26.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,eliminate the deficit. In addition, we can\Ncross out, I want to be honest with people
Dialogue: 0,0:05:26.27,0:05:32.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because that's not a reason to believe\Nwe're in too deep a deficit. And next, we
Dialogue: 0,0:05:32.08,0:05:37.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can cross out that people have heard that\Nover and over again in four years. Well,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:37.92,0:05:43.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that might be seen as a reason to believe\Nthat we're in a deficit because everybody
Dialogue: 0,0:05:43.98,0:05:49.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,seems to say it, but let's assume that's\Nnot part of his argument here and we'll
Dialogue: 0,0:05:49.74,0:05:55.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,cross it out. Now, let's move on. A second\Nform of excess verbiage that is words that
Dialogue: 0,0:05:55.75,0:06:00.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,don't contribute to the force of the\Nargument is what I like to call road
Dialogue: 0,0:06:00.86,0:06:05.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,markers. A lot of times, people, you know,\Ngood speakers, they tell you what topic
Dialogue: 0,0:06:05.85,0:06:11.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they are talking about and why they are\Ntalking about it. Why it's important and
Dialogue: 0,0:06:11.03,0:06:16.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,worth talking about. But to say why it's\Nan important issue and to say what issue
Dialogue: 0,0:06:16.27,0:06:21.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it is, doesn't provide any reason to\Nbelieve that what they say about the issue
Dialogue: 0,0:06:21.38,0:06:25.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is true or false. So, it doesn't\Ncontribute to the argument. Here's an
Dialogue: 0,0:06:25.83,0:06:30.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,example from the same politician in the\Nsame debate as we j ust saw. This
Dialogue: 0,0:06:30.88,0:06:37.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,politician said, now, I want to go back to\Nthe whole issue of healthcare, because we
Dialogue: 0,0:06:37.19,0:06:43.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,touched it, and I think the American\Npeople deserve to know what we would do
Dialogue: 0,0:06:43.05,0:06:48.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,different. And notice that he says, he's\Ngoing to talk about healthcare but he
Dialogue: 0,0:06:48.40,0:06:53.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,doesn't say anything about healthcare. He\Ndidn't tell you what he's going to say
Dialogue: 0,0:06:53.27,0:06:58.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about healthcare. All he says is he wants\Nto go back to that issue. And he tells you
Dialogue: 0,0:06:58.27,0:07:03.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,why he wants to go back to that issue. But\Nhe doesn't add any reason to believe that
Dialogue: 0,0:07:03.52,0:07:08.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what he's about to say about the issue is\Ntrue. Now, this can, of course, still be
Dialogue: 0,0:07:08.02,0:07:12.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,useful because you might get confused\Nabout what the issue is and he might be
Dialogue: 0,0:07:12.70,0:07:17.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,changing the topic and he wants to signal\Nthat he is changing the topic, and that
Dialogue: 0,0:07:17.26,0:07:22.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,will help his listeners. But it still\Ndoesn't add to the argument, it doesn't
Dialogue: 0,0:07:22.00,0:07:26.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,give you any reason for the conclusion\Nthat he's going to want to draw. We can
Dialogue: 0,0:07:26.51,0:07:31.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,cross out these excess words. we can cross\Nout, now, I want to go back to the whole
Dialogue: 0,0:07:31.37,0:07:36.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,issue of healthcare because that doesn't\Nshow that his views on healthcare are
Dialogue: 0,0:07:36.11,0:07:40.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,correct. And we can cross out because we\Ntouched it. That's a reason why we're
Dialogue: 0,0:07:40.45,0:07:44.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,going to that issue, but again, that\Ndoesn't give any reason why his views are
Dialogue: 0,0:07:44.76,0:07:49.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,correct. And we can even cross out, but I\Nthink the American people deserve to know
Dialogue: 0,0:07:49.40,0:07:53.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what we would do different because the\Nfact that they deserve to know what you're
Dialogue: 0,0:07:53.99,0:07:58.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,going to do doesn't show that what you're\Ngoing to do is the right thing to do. So,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:58.25,0:08:02.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,none of these claims are really reasons\Nthat are going to be reasons for the main
Dialogue: 0,0:08:02.67,0:08:07.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,part of his argument, which is to support\Nthe particular views on healthcare that
Dialogue: 0,0:08:07.26,0:08:12.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he's going to tell you about a few seconds\Nafter this. The next type of excess
Dialogue: 0,0:08:12.18,0:08:18.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,verbiage is tangents. People go off on\Ntangents all the time. Here's an example.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:19.58,0:08:24.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You know, you really ought to think about\Ntaking a History course. I, I still
Dialogue: 0,0:08:24.22,0:08:29.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,remember my History courses in college.\NThere was this one time when, there was a
Dialogue: 0,0:08:29.18,0:08:34.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,dog that one of the students brought to\Nclass and, and the dog like barked and
Dialogue: 0,0:08:34.01,0:08:38.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then he ran up on stage and he, he cut\Nunder the professor and knocked the
Dialogue: 0,0:08:38.59,0:08:43.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,professor on his rear-end. It was really\Nfunny. So, you know, I think that History
Dialogue: 0,0:08:43.67,0:08:49.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is a good thing to study. Now, notice that\Nall this stuff about the dog has nothing
Dialogue: 0,0:08:49.34,0:08:54.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to do with History. It's no reason to take\Na History course instead of a Philosophy
Dialogue: 0,0:08:54.46,0:08:59.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,course or a Classics course or a Science\Ncourse. The same thing could happen in
Dialogue: 0,0:08:59.34,0:09:03.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,those courses just as well. So, the\Ntangent plays a certain role. It makes it
Dialogue: 0,0:09:03.98,0:09:08.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,interesting. It keeps your attention.\NMaybe it makes it memorable for you, what
Dialogue: 0,0:09:08.73,0:09:13.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he said. But it doesn't actually provide a\Nreason why you ought to take a History
Dialogue: 0,0:09:13.73,0:09:20.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,course. So, since those parts of the words\Nwere just a tangent that don't provide any
Dialogue: 0,0:09:20.43,0:09:26.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reason we can cross them out, too, because\Nthey are excess verbiage. But sometimes,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:26.55,0:09:32.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people go off on irrelevant tangents. Not\Njust by accident because they lose their
Dialogue: 0,0:09:32.25,0:09:37.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,train of thought, but because they're\Ntrying to fool you. They're trying to
Dialogue: 0,0:09:37.40,0:09:42.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,produce what is called a red herring. The\Nname red hearing supposedly comes from
Dialogue: 0,0:09:42.98,0:09:48.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,somebody who crossed the red herring over\Nthe trail and then the hound couldn't
Dialogue: 0,0:09:48.32,0:09:53.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,track its scent anymore. And that's\Nbasically what's going on here. Sometimes,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:53.39,0:09:58.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people produce tangents that distracts you\Nfrom the main line of argument because
Dialogue: 0,0:09:58.87,0:10:03.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they know that there are weaknesses in\Nthat line of argument and they don't want
Dialogue: 0,0:10:03.87,0:10:08.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you to notice them. That's what a red\Nherring is. And it's a type of tangent
Dialogue: 0,0:10:08.66,0:10:14.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that you have to learn to watch out for.\NBecause if you want to see the problems in
Dialogue: 0,0:10:14.25,0:10:19.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,your opponent's arguments or even in your\Nfriend's arguments, then you need to not
Dialogue: 0,0:10:19.91,0:10:26.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,get distracted by tangents that are in\Neffect red herrings. Yet, another example
Dialogue: 0,0:10:26.14,0:10:33.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of excess verbiage is, well, examples.\NHere's an example of that. A different
Dialogue: 0,0:10:33.87,0:10:40.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,politician in the same debate said this.\NHere's what happened. In the time that
Dialogue: 0,0:10:40.33,0:10:46.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they have been in office in the last four\Nyears, 1.6 million private sector jobs
Dialogue: 0,0:10:46.94,0:10:53.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have been lost, 2.7 million manufacturing\Njobs have been lost. And it's had real
Dialogue: 0,0:10:53.62,0:10:59.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,consequences in places like Cle veland.\NCleveland is a wonderful distinguished
Dialogue: 0,0:10:59.28,0:11:05.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,city. It's done a lot of great things, but\Nit has the highest poverty rate in the
Dialogue: 0,0:11:05.15,0:11:12.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,country. One out of almost two children in\NCleveland are now living in poverty. Now,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:12.17,0:11:18.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,notice that this politician is talking\Nabout the unemployment rate in the rest of
Dialogue: 0,0:11:18.31,0:11:23.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the country, in the country as a whole.\NSo, why bring in Cleveland? Well, you
Dialogue: 0,0:11:23.62,0:11:28.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,might be saying that Cleveland shows that\Nthere's problems throughout the rest of
Dialogue: 0,0:11:28.36,0:11:32.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the country, but that can't be right\Nbecause Cleveland is just one example. And
Dialogue: 0,0:11:32.86,0:11:37.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it might be an outlier that doesn't\Nrepresent the general trends. So, what
Dialogue: 0,0:11:37.08,0:11:41.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he's doing with this example is he's\Ntrying to bring it down the home, and make
Dialogue: 0,0:11:41.59,0:11:45.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you feel for the real effects. But he\Ndoesn't come out and say that you can
Dialogue: 0,0:11:45.98,0:11:50.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,generalize from Cleveland to the rest of\Nthe country, or that everyone else is
Dialogue: 0,0:11:50.86,0:11:55.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,suffering in exactly the same way. He's\Njust giving one example. And so, it
Dialogue: 0,0:11:55.43,0:12:00.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,doesn't really support his general claim\Nthat the unemployment is a problem
Dialogue: 0,0:12:00.18,0:12:05.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,throughout the whole country. That means\Nthat it's not an extra premise in the
Dialogue: 0,0:12:05.86,0:12:12.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument and we can cross it out like\Nother forms of excess verbiage. Now, we've
Dialogue: 0,0:12:12.70,0:12:19.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,seen that excess verbiage can take the\Nform of repetition or road markers or
Dialogue: 0,0:12:19.36,0:12:26.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tangents or examples. And people use these\Na lot. Matter of fact, I like to think of
Dialogue: 0,0:12:26.16,0:12:32.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a general trick that people use called the\Ntrick of excess verbiage. A lot of people
Dialogue: 0,0:12:32.16,0:12:37.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,talk too much and they keep saying things\Nover and over again, go off on tangents,
Dialogue: 0,0:12:37.94,0:12:43.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and give more examples than they really\Nneed. And all of that is a way of hiding
Dialogue: 0,0:12:43.65,0:12:49.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the problem with their position. It's a\Ntrick to use too many words because the
Dialogue: 0,0:12:49.28,0:12:55.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,real point gets lost in the middle of\Nthose words. So, you can fool people by
Dialogue: 0,0:12:55.15,0:13:02.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,throwing in those extra words. That's the\Ntrick of excess verbiage but be careful.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:02.32,0:13:07.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What seems like excess verbiage that's\Njust there to trick you might really be an
Dialogue: 0,0:13:07.62,0:13:12.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,essential part of the argument. So what\Nyou need to do when you have a passage and
Dialogue: 0,0:13:12.51,0:13:17.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you're trying to get the argument out of\Nit, is to cross out all the exc ess words
Dialogue: 0,0:13:17.35,0:13:22.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but also look at what's left over. If\Nwhat's left over is enough premises and
Dialogue: 0,0:13:22.09,0:13:27.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclusion to make a good argument, then\Nthe stuff that you crossed out probably
Dialogue: 0,0:13:27.04,0:13:31.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,really is excess. But if it turns out that\Nwhat's left over is not a very good
Dialogue: 0,0:13:31.86,0:13:37.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument, to autocheck all those words you\Ncrossed out and make sure they really
Dialogue: 0,0:13:37.12,0:13:41.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,weren't necessary. Cuz you're not being\Nfair to the person that you're
Dialogue: 0,0:13:41.44,0:13:46.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,interpreting if you crossed out something\Nthat was an essential part of the
Dialogue: 0,0:13:46.14,0:13:51.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument. And some cases are going to be\Ntricky. Its not going to be clear whether
Dialogue: 0,0:13:51.82,0:13:57.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or not to cross the noun. Some small words\Nthat are tricky are guarding terms. Here
Dialogue: 0,0:13:57.84,0:14:03.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is an example. I think Miranda is at home\Nso we can meet her there. What's the
Dialogue: 0,0:14:03.49,0:14:09.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,guarding word? You already found that out\Nwhen you did the close analysis, right? I
Dialogue: 0,0:14:09.43,0:14:15.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,think. Now, one way to read this argument\Nis that the premises I think Miranda is at
Dialogue: 0,0:14:15.52,0:14:20.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,home and the conclusion is we can meet her\Nthere. But that's kind of weird because
Dialogue: 0,0:14:20.85,0:14:25.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the fact that you think she is at home is\Nnot what makes it true that you can meet
Dialogue: 0,0:14:25.48,0:14:28.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,her there, it's the fact that she is at\Nhome that can make it the case that you
Dialogue: 0,0:14:28.81,0:14:32.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can meet her there. So, if the premise is\Nabout what you think, and the conclusion
Dialogue: 0,0:14:32.84,0:14:37.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is about where she is and where you can\Nmeet her, then the argument doesn't make
Dialogue: 0,0:14:37.30,0:14:42.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,any sense. So, in this case, what we want\Nto do is to cross out the words I think,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:42.42,0:14:47.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because that's going to make the argument\Nsilly and the argument really amounts to,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:47.40,0:14:52.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Miranda is at home, so we can meet her\Nthere. And the I think covers that whole
Dialogue: 0,0:14:52.24,0:14:57.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thing. It's saying, I think she's at home,\Nso I think we can meet her there. But the
Dialogue: 0,0:14:57.28,0:15:02.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument doesn't involve some premise\Nabout what your thoughts are and contrast
Dialogue: 0,0:15:02.75,0:15:08.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this with a different argument. Miranda is\Nat home, so we can probably meet her
Dialogue: 0,0:15:08.74,0:15:15.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there. Now, there's another guarding term,\Nright? Probably. Can you get rid of that?
Dialogue: 0,0:15:15.17,0:15:20.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, then the argument becomes Miranda is\Nat home, so we can meet her there. But
Dialogue: 0,0:15:20.06,0:15:24.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's clearly not what the speaker was\Ntrying to say, if they included the word
Dialogue: 0,0:15:24.53,0:15:27.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,probab ly.\NThey realized that the fact that she's at
Dialogue: 0,0:15:27.37,0:15:31.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,home right now doesn't mean that we can\Nmeet her there because it might take us
Dialogue: 0,0:15:31.84,0:15:36.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,awhile to get there and she might leave\Nwhile we're on the way. So, it's not fair
Dialogue: 0,0:15:36.30,0:15:40.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to the person giving the argument. And it\Nmakes the argument look worse to cross out
Dialogue: 0,0:15:40.99,0:15:45.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the word, probably. So, in that case, you\Nwant to keep the guarding term in order to
Dialogue: 0,0:15:45.62,0:15:50.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,properly represent the force of the\Nargument. So, it looks like sometimes, you
Dialogue: 0,0:15:50.54,0:15:55.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,need to keep the guarding terms and\Nsometimes, you need to cross them out. And
Dialogue: 0,0:15:55.53,0:16:00.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there's not going to be any strict rule\Nthat you can follow. You have to use your
Dialogue: 0,0:16:00.59,0:16:05.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sense of what's going to make the argument\Nas good as possible. What's going to fit
Dialogue: 0,0:16:05.58,0:16:11.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what the speaker was really trying to say.\NAnother tricky case is assuring terms.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:11.81,0:16:17.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Suppose I'm writing a letter of\Nrecommendation and I say, he is clearly a
Dialogue: 0,0:16:17.09,0:16:24.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,great worker. I know that. So, you ought\Nto hire him. The assuring terms are
Dialogue: 0,0:16:24.90,0:16:31.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,clearly and I know that. But now, the\Nquestion is, is the argument really first
Dialogue: 0,0:16:31.53,0:16:37.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premise, he's clearly a great worker.\NSecond premise, I know that. Conclusion,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:37.04,0:16:41.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you ought to hire him. It's kind of weird.\NAgain, if you think about it, cuz you're
Dialogue: 0,0:16:41.97,0:16:46.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not hiring him because it's clear. If he's\Na great worker but it's not clear that
Dialogue: 0,0:16:46.56,0:16:50.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he's a great worker, then you're still\Nought to hire him because he is a great
Dialogue: 0,0:16:50.97,0:16:55.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,worker. Or if he's a great worker and I\Ndon't know he's a great worker, you still
Dialogue: 0,0:16:55.51,0:17:00.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ought to hire him cuz he's a great worker.\NThe fact that I know it is irrelevant to
Dialogue: 0,0:17:00.21,0:17:04.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whether you want to hire him cuz that's\Nabout my mental states not his abilities.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:04.80,0:17:09.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, that representation of the argument\Ndoesn't really capture the force of
Dialogue: 0,0:17:09.05,0:17:14.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,somebody who writes this letter of\Nrecommendation. So, we can cross out the
Dialogue: 0,0:17:14.07,0:17:19.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,words I know that and we can cross out\Nclearly, and then the argument is he's a
Dialogue: 0,0:17:19.90,0:17:27.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,great worker so you ought to hire him. But\Ncontrast this example. I am certain that
Dialogue: 0,0:17:27.26,0:17:33.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jacob is cheating on his wife, so I ougt\Nto tell her. Now, you might think I am
Dialogue: 0,0:17:33.93,0:17:38.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,certain that is just another assuring term\Nso we can cross it ou t.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:38.02,0:17:42.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And then, the real argument is Jacob is\Ncheating on his wife so I ought to tell
Dialogue: 0,0:17:42.91,0:17:48.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,her. But now, think about that argument.\NThe mere fact that he's cheating on his
Dialogue: 0,0:17:48.60,0:17:53.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,wife doesn't mean I ought to tell her if\NI'm not certain cuz if I have some
Dialogue: 0,0:17:53.21,0:17:57.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,suspicions or I'm just guessing, but I\Nreally don't know, then I probably ought
Dialogue: 0,0:17:57.93,0:18:02.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not to tell Jacob's wife that, you know,\NJacob was cheating on her. So here, the
Dialogue: 0,0:18:02.88,0:18:09.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,force of the argument, does seem to depend\Non my certainty. If I'm not certain, I
Dialogue: 0,0:18:09.16,0:18:14.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,shouldn't tell her. If I am certain, maybe\NI should. So, we can't cross out the
Dialogue: 0,0:18:14.16,0:18:19.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,assuring term in this case cuz that would\Ndistort the argument. And, of course, some
Dialogue: 0,0:18:19.40,0:18:23.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people might disagree with that. They\Nmight say, well, look, if you have some
Dialogue: 0,0:18:23.16,0:18:27.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reason but your not certain then you ought\Nto tell her and that could be
Dialogue: 0,0:18:27.14,0:18:32.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,controversial. But we're talking here not\Nabout what those people think but what the
Dialogue: 0,0:18:32.34,0:18:37.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,speaker thinks, the person giving this\Nargument when this person said,"I'm I'm
Dialogue: 0,0:18:37.06,0:18:41.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,certain that Jacob is cheating on his\Nwife." They seemed to indicate that to
Dialogue: 0,0:18:41.67,0:18:46.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,them, the fact that they are certain\Nprovides an even better reason why he
Dialogue: 0,0:18:46.46,0:18:51.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,should tell Jacob's wife. So, if we want\Nto capture what the person giving the
Dialogue: 0,0:18:51.53,0:18:56.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument intended in this case, we have to\Nleave them the assuring term. So, you're
Dialogue: 0,0:18:56.96,0:19:01.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,seeing one example, where you ought to get\Nrid of the assuring terms. And another
Dialogue: 0,0:19:01.48,0:19:05.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,example, where you ought to keep the\Nreassuring terms. And just like with
Dialogue: 0,0:19:05.71,0:19:10.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,guarding terms the same point applies.\NThere is no mechanic rule that will apply
Dialogue: 0,0:19:10.90,0:19:16.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to every case. You have to think through\Nthe argument and decide whether crossing
Dialogue: 0,0:19:16.15,0:19:21.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,out those words and removing them distorts\Nthe argument or instead, crossing them out
Dialogue: 0,0:19:21.66,0:19:26.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,makes the argument look even better\Nbecause the point of removing excess
Dialogue: 0,0:19:26.40,0:19:31.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,verbiage is to get rid of the things that\Naren't necessary but keep everything that
Dialogue: 0,0:19:31.84,0:19:37.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is necessary to make the argument look as\Ngood as it possibly can look. Finally,
Dialogue: 0,0:19:37.88,0:19:42.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,once we've removed all the excess\Nverbiage, what's left over? The answer is
Dialogue: 0,0:19:42.94,0:19:46.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the explicit premises and conclusion in\Nthe argume nt.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:46.62,0:19:52.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The point of removing the excess verbiage\Nwas to separate those essential parts of
Dialogue: 0,0:19:52.38,0:19:58.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the argument, those basics of the argument\Nfrom all the stuff that's unnecessary. Of
Dialogue: 0,0:19:58.10,0:20:02.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,course, we still have to decide which ones\Nare premises and which ones the
Dialogue: 0,0:20:02.19,0:20:06.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclusion, right? And that's why the\Nclose analysis helps because we indicated
Dialogue: 0,0:20:06.52,0:20:11.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which ones were reason markers and which\Nones were conclusion markers and that lets
Dialogue: 0,0:20:11.17,0:20:15.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you to identify that these are the\Npremises and that's the conclusion. And so
Dialogue: 0,0:20:16.15,0:20:20.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,now, we can do step three. We can put the\Nargument standard form. We put the
Dialogue: 0,0:20:20.25,0:20:25.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premises above the line and we put dot\Npyramid, and then the conclusion below the
Dialogue: 0,0:20:25.33,0:20:30.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,line. And we've got the argument in\Nstandard form, which completes stage two
Dialogue: 0,0:20:30.45,0:20:35.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the reconstruction project. At this\Npoint, it's useful to look back at the
Dialogue: 0,0:20:35.37,0:20:40.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,passage and see whether you've gotten rid\Noff all the excess included all of the
Dialogue: 0,0:20:40.43,0:20:45.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,basics of the argument. So, you can look\Nat the passage and say, is everything
Dialogue: 0,0:20:45.17,0:20:50.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's not crossed out in a premise or a\Nconclusion of the standard form. And if
Dialogue: 0,0:20:50.16,0:20:55.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there's something that's still there in\Nthe passage that isn't used, you've got to
Dialogue: 0,0:20:55.28,0:21:00.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,decide at that point is it really excess\Nor not. And, of course, if the argument
Dialogue: 0,0:21:00.03,0:21:04.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,looks really bad, you've got to look back\Nand see whether it's missing something
Dialogue: 0,0:21:04.68,0:21:09.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that you had crossed out as being excess\Nverbiage when it really was an essential
Dialogue: 0,0:21:09.46,0:21:14.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,part of the argument. So, we can use this\Nprocess of putting it into standard form
Dialogue: 0,0:21:14.18,0:21:19.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as a test of whether we've performed\Nproperly the other step of getting rid of
Dialogue: 0,0:21:19.29,0:21:25.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,excess verbiage. So, steps two and three\Nreally work together in this stage two of
Dialogue: 0,0:21:25.43,0:21:31.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,getting down to basics. That's what helps\Nus to use the different parts to see
Dialogue: 0,0:21:31.34,0:21:34.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whether we've done each of them properly.