[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:02.60,0:00:08.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Welcome back. We've covered stages one\Nthrough three of argument reconstruction
Dialogue: 0,0:00:08.48,0:00:13.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,namely, close analysis, get down to\Nbasics, and sharpen edges. In this
Dialogue: 0,0:00:13.47,0:00:19.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lecture, we'll cover stage four, which is\Norganized parts. Cuz it's not enough to
Dialogue: 0,0:00:19.65,0:00:25.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,isolate the parts and figure out what they\Nare. We need to show how the fit together
Dialogue: 0,0:00:25.91,0:00:32.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in a structure so that they work together\Nto support the conclusion of the argument.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:32.17,0:00:37.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To see how this works, let's start with an\Nexample. Consider this example. That
Dialogue: 0,0:00:37.82,0:00:44.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fertilizer won't help the roses bloom cuz\Nthere is already a lot of nitrogen in the
Dialogue: 0,0:00:44.12,0:00:49.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,soil. So, the fertilizer will make the\Nnitrogen levels too high. Of course, so is
Dialogue: 0,0:00:49.70,0:00:55.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a conclusion marker so one conclusion is\Nthat, the fertilizer will make the
Dialogue: 0,0:00:55.06,0:01:00.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,nitrogen levels too high. And then, you\Nmight think that one might have put the
Dialogue: 0,0:01:00.54,0:01:06.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument into standard form goes like\Nthis. Premise one is that fertilizer won't
Dialogue: 0,0:01:06.12,0:01:11.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,make the roses bloom. Premise two is the\Nnitrogen levels in the soil are already
Dialogue: 0,0:01:11.69,0:01:17.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,high. And then, the conclusion is that the\Nfertilizer will make the nitrogen levels
Dialogue: 0,0:01:17.05,0:01:21.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,too high. But that doesn't really make any\Nsense, if you think about it. How could
Dialogue: 0,0:01:21.91,0:01:26.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the fact that the roses won't bloom be a\Nreason to believe that the nitrogen levels
Dialogue: 0,0:01:26.91,0:01:32.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are too high? This couldn't be a reason\Nfor that. So, we might just have the wrong
Dialogue: 0,0:01:32.38,0:01:37.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,structure. However, there is another\Nargument marker. This time it's a premise
Dialogue: 0,0:01:37.77,0:01:43.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,marker, because. And that indicates that\Nthe claim that there's already a lot of
Dialogue: 0,0:01:43.38,0:01:48.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,nitrogen in the soil is a premise. But\Nwhat is the conclusion for that premise?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:48.90,0:01:55.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's supposed to show that the\Nfertilizer won't make the roses bloom. So,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:55.11,0:02:00.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we've missed that part of the structure if\Nwe put it in standard form, the way we
Dialogue: 0,0:02:00.82,0:02:06.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,first thought. The trick here is that\Nthere are really two conclusions. One
Dialogue: 0,0:02:06.03,0:02:11.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclusion is that the fertilizer won't\Nhelp the roses bloom, and another
Dialogue: 0,0:02:11.18,0:02:17.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclusion is that the fertilizer will\Nmake the nitrogen levels too high. But
Dialogue: 0,0:02:17.09,0:02:22.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,each argument's just supposed to have one\Nconclusion. So, how are we going to put
Dialogue: 0,0:02:22.76,0:02:28.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this into a structure? The solution is\Nthat there are two arguments. One is that
Dialogue: 0,0:02:28.58,0:02:33.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the nitrogen levels in the soil are\Nalready high. Therefore, adding the
Dialogue: 0,0:02:33.73,0:02:39.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fertilizer will make them too high. And\Nthe second argument is that, adding the
Dialogue: 0,0:02:39.47,0:02:45.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fertilizer will make the nitrogen levels\Ntoo high, therefore the fertilizer will
Dialogue: 0,0:02:45.36,0:02:52.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not make the roses bloom. Now notice that\None argument really builds on the other
Dialogue: 0,0:02:52.49,0:02:58.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because the conclusion of the first\Nargument is really a premise in the second
Dialogue: 0,0:02:58.51,0:03:04.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument. So, we can represent them as two\Nseparate arguments. But we can also put
Dialogue: 0,0:03:04.61,0:03:10.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,them together in a chain. So that the\Nargument says, the nitrogen levels in the
Dialogue: 0,0:03:10.55,0:03:16.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,soil are already high. Therefore, adding\Nfertilizer will make them too high. And
Dialogue: 0,0:03:16.50,0:03:23.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,therefore, adding fertilizer will not help\Nthe roses bloom. Now, if we take that
Dialogue: 0,0:03:23.30,0:03:29.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whole structure and we try to represent it\Nin a diagram, and we represent each
Dialogue: 0,0:03:29.24,0:03:35.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premise with a number, which is the number\Nthat was given in the standard form, then
Dialogue: 0,0:03:35.79,0:03:41.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we can simply have premise one with an\Narrow to premise two indicating that
Dialogue: 0,0:03:41.58,0:03:47.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premise one is a reason for premise two.\NAnd then, another arrow going from premise
Dialogue: 0,0:03:47.82,0:03:53.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,two to premise three to indicate that two\Nis a reason for three. In a way, we've got
Dialogue: 0,0:03:53.100,0:03:59.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,two premises and two conclusions because\Nthat one kind in the middle, number two,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:59.47,0:04:04.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,operates as a conclusion in the first\Nargument and a premise in the second
Dialogue: 0,0:04:04.60,0:04:09.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument. But overall, I hope the diagram,\Nits clear. Well, I want to call this
Dialogue: 0,0:04:09.74,0:04:14.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,linear structure. When you have one\Npremise giving reason for a conclusion
Dialogue: 0,0:04:14.39,0:04:19.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which is then premise for another\Nconclusion, then they form a line in the
Dialogue: 0,0:04:19.45,0:04:23.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,diagram them in the way that I am\Nproposing. Arguments can have other
Dialogue: 0,0:04:23.84,0:04:29.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,structures, too. In particular, sometimes\Nthere's more than one premise associated
Dialogue: 0,0:04:29.42,0:04:34.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with a single conclusion. And this can\Nhappen in two ways. The first, we're going
Dialogue: 0,0:04:34.45,0:04:39.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to call the branching structure, and the\Nsecond we're going to call the joint
Dialogue: 0,0:04:39.76,0:04:45.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,structure. Here is an example of the\Nbranching structure. I'm not going to go
Dialogue: 0,0:04:45.32,0:04:50.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to the movie with you because I don't like\Nhorror flicks. And besides, I'm too busy.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:50.93,0:04:56.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The word beca use is a premise marker. So\Nthat indicates that the conclusion is
Dialogue: 0,0:04:56.26,0:05:01.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that, I'm not going to go to the movie\Nwith you. And there are two premises. One
Dialogue: 0,0:05:01.32,0:05:06.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is, I don't like horror flicks, and the\Nother is, I'm too busy. Now, you might
Dialogue: 0,0:05:06.32,0:05:11.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,think that, that could just be put in the\Nold linear structure that we already saw.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:11.92,0:05:18.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But then, the argument's going to look\Nlike this. I don't like horror flicks.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:18.04,0:05:22.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Therefore, I'm too busy. Therefore, I'm\Nnot going to go to the movie. But, wait a
Dialogue: 0,0:05:22.97,0:05:27.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,minute. The fact that I don't like horror\Nflicks doesn't mean I'm too busy. That
Dialogue: 0,0:05:27.84,0:05:32.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,doesn't make any sense. Oh, maybe it's the\Nother way around. I'm too busy. Therefore,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:32.84,0:05:37.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I don't like horror flicks. Therefore, I'm\Nnot going to go to that movie with you.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:37.60,0:05:42.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That doesn't make any sense either. The\Nfact that I'm too busy isn't why I don't
Dialogue: 0,0:05:42.53,0:05:47.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like horror flicks. The problem is, there\Nare two premises here but neither one is a
Dialogue: 0,0:05:47.65,0:05:52.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reason for the other, as we saw in the\Nlinear structure. Instead, in this
Dialogue: 0,0:05:52.42,0:05:57.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,branching structure, each premise is\Noperating independently. There's one
Dialogue: 0,0:05:57.42,0:06:01.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument. I don't like horror flicks,\Ntherefore I'm not going to go to that
Dialogue: 0,0:06:01.89,0:06:06.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,movie with you. There's another argument.\NI'm too busy, therefore I'm not going to
Dialogue: 0,0:06:06.61,0:06:11.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that movie with you. And each premise by\Nitself is a sufficient reason not to go to
Dialogue: 0,0:06:11.52,0:06:15.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the movie with you. I mean, just think\Nabout it. If I wasn't too busy, but I
Dialogue: 0,0:06:15.83,0:06:20.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,didn't like horror flicks, I wouldn't go\Nto the movie. But if I liked horror
Dialogue: 0,0:06:20.26,0:06:24.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,flicks, but I was too busy, I still would\Ngo to the movie. So, each premise by
Dialogue: 0,0:06:24.68,0:06:29.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,itself is enough, and they operate\Nindependently. That's what makes this a
Dialogue: 0,0:06:29.85,0:06:35.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,branching structure instead of a linear\Nstructure. Let's diagram it and you'll see
Dialogue: 0,0:06:35.39,0:06:40.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,why we call it a branching structure. One\Nway to diagram it would be to simply draw
Dialogue: 0,0:06:40.73,0:06:45.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an arrow between premise one and the\Nconclusion two. And then, there's a
Dialogue: 0,0:06:45.62,0:06:50.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,separate argument, so you draw another\Narrow from one star, another premise, to
Dialogue: 0,0:06:50.92,0:06:56.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclusion two. And that's okay. But,\Nnotice that it doesn't show you that both
Dialogue: 0,0:06:56.73,0:07:02.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premises are reasons for the same\Nconclusion. So, to capture t hat aspect of
Dialogue: 0,0:07:02.43,0:07:08.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the structure, that both Premise one and\NPremise one Star support the same
Dialogue: 0,0:07:08.13,0:07:14.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclusion, namely two. It's better to\Ndiagram it so that there's an arrow that
Dialogue: 0,0:07:14.14,0:07:20.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,runs independently from both premises to a\Nsingle instance of conclusion two, as you
Dialogue: 0,0:07:20.53,0:07:25.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,see on the diagram on the screen. And that\Nshould show you why we're calling it a
Dialogue: 0,0:07:25.29,0:07:28.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,branching structure cuz it kind of\Nbranches, it looks like the branches of a
Dialogue: 0,0:07:28.95,0:07:32.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tree. Okay. Well, it doesn't really look\Nlike the branches of a tree, but you get
Dialogue: 0,0:07:32.70,0:07:36.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the idea. We're going to call it a\Nbranching structure. Next, we have to
Dialogue: 0,0:07:36.17,0:07:40.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,separate this branching structure from\Nwhat we're going to call the joint
Dialogue: 0,0:07:40.68,0:07:45.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,structure. The difference is that in the\Nbranching structure, the premises provide
Dialogue: 0,0:07:45.81,0:07:50.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,independent support for the conclusion.\NWhereas, in this joint structure, they
Dialogue: 0,0:07:50.63,0:07:55.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,work together and they're not going to\Nhave force independent of each-other. It's
Dialogue: 0,0:07:55.77,0:08:00.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like the joint in your leg, which joins\Ntogether the calf with the thigh. And, if
Dialogue: 0,0:08:00.78,0:08:05.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you didn't have both, it wouldn't work\Nvery well. So, we're going to call it a
Dialogue: 0,0:08:05.40,0:08:11.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,joint structure. Here's an example. For my\Nbirthday, my wife always gives me either a
Dialogue: 0,0:08:11.62,0:08:17.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sweater or a board game. This box does not\Ncontain a sweater. So, this time she must
Dialogue: 0,0:08:17.58,0:08:23.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have given me a board game. Now, notice\Nthat the argent marker, so, indicates that
Dialogue: 0,0:08:23.32,0:08:28.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the conclusion is, this time she must've\Ngiven me a board game. And it's got two
Dialogue: 0,0:08:28.23,0:08:33.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premises. And you might think that they\Ngot a linear structure, and the argument
Dialogue: 0,0:08:33.15,0:08:38.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,goes something like this. My wife always\Ngives me either a sweater or board games.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:38.19,0:08:43.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Therefore, this box does not contain a\Nsweater. Therefore, this time she gave me
Dialogue: 0,0:08:43.05,0:08:47.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,board game. That doesn't make any sense,\Nright? I mean, the fact that she always
Dialogue: 0,0:08:47.84,0:08:52.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,gives me either a sweater or board game is\Nno reason to believe this box doesn't
Dialogue: 0,0:08:52.88,0:08:58.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,contain a sweater. Well, okay. Let's try\Nit again. Maybe it's a branching
Dialogue: 0,0:08:58.97,0:09:05.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,structure. That would mean that the\Nargument looks like this. My wife always
Dialogue: 0,0:09:05.16,0:09:11.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,gives me either a sweater or a board game.\NTherefore, this time she gave me a board
Dialogue: 0,0:09:11.17,0:09:16.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,game. And, as a separat e argument, this\Nbox does not contain a sweater, therefore
Dialogue: 0,0:09:16.89,0:09:21.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this time she must have given me a board\Ngame. Neither of those arguments makes any
Dialogue: 0,0:09:21.36,0:09:25.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sense so it can't be a branching\Nstructure. Instead, what we have here is
Dialogue: 0,0:09:25.92,0:09:31.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the two premises working together. She\Nalways gives me either a sweater or a
Dialogue: 0,0:09:31.81,0:09:38.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,board game. And, the second premise, this\Nbox does not contain a sweater. Those two
Dialogue: 0,0:09:38.01,0:09:44.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premises have to work together. It's only\Njointly working together that they can
Dialogue: 0,0:09:44.20,0:09:50.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,support the conclusion that, this time she\Nmust have given me a board game. How can
Dialogue: 0,0:09:50.56,0:09:57.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we diagram this joint structure? We can\Nput a plus sign between premise one and
Dialogue: 0,0:09:57.09,0:10:02.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premise two, then draw a line under them\Nto show that they work together jointly.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:02.62,0:10:08.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And take a line from that line and draw an\Narrow down to the conclusion, just like in
Dialogue: 0,0:10:08.97,0:10:14.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the diagram. And this is what we're going\Nto call the joint structure. So, we've
Dialogue: 0,0:10:14.16,0:10:19.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,seen the linear structure, the branching\Nstructure, and the joint structure. And,
Dialogue: 0,0:10:19.35,0:10:24.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we can combine more than one of these\Nstructures into a single argument. To see
Dialogue: 0,0:10:24.81,0:10:30.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,how to do this, let's just do a slight\Nvariation on the previous example. My wife
Dialogue: 0,0:10:30.21,0:10:35.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,always gives me either a sweater or a\Nboard game. This is box is not contain a
Dialogue: 0,0:10:35.53,0:10:41.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sweater because it rattles when I shake\Nit. So, this time she must have given me a
Dialogue: 0,0:10:41.90,0:10:48.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,board game. This argument combines a\Nlinear structure with a joint structure.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:49.12,0:10:54.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There are two argument markers. One is a\Nconclusion marker, so, and that indicates
Dialogue: 0,0:10:54.39,0:10:59.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that the eventual conclusion is that she\Nmust given me a board game this time. But
Dialogue: 0,0:10:59.72,0:11:05.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there's also that new word, because, which\Nindicates that the fact that it rattles
Dialogue: 0,0:11:05.05,0:11:09.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when I shake means that it's not a\Nsweater. So, the first stage of the
Dialogue: 0,0:11:09.60,0:11:15.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument in standard form looks like this.\NPremise one, this box rattles when I shake
Dialogue: 0,0:11:15.13,0:11:20.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it. Therefore, conclusion, this box does\Nnot contain a sweater. Stage two says,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:20.77,0:11:27.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this box does not contain a sweater, my\Nwife always gives me either a sweater or a
Dialogue: 0,0:11:27.82,0:11:34.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,board game. So, the conclusion, this time,\Nshe must have given me a board game. And,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:34.56,0:11:40.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of course, the conclusion of that fir st\Nlittle argument is identical with the
Dialogue: 0,0:11:40.06,0:11:45.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premise of the second argument, so we can\Nput them together into a chain. We can
Dialogue: 0,0:11:45.70,0:11:51.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say," this box rattles when I shake it, so\Nit must not contain a sweater." My wife
Dialogue: 0,0:11:51.27,0:11:56.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,always gives me a sweater or a board game,\Nso this time she must have given me a
Dialogue: 0,0:11:56.98,0:12:02.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,board game. That's how we get a linear\Nstructure combined with a joint structure.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:02.99,0:12:08.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And we can use our diagram methods to\Ndiagram this argument the same way we did
Dialogue: 0,0:12:08.60,0:12:14.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,before. We simply start with premise one,\Nthe box rattles when I shake it. Draw an
Dialogue: 0,0:12:14.78,0:12:20.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arrow down to its conclusion. Namely, the\Nbox does not contain a sweater. That's
Dialogue: 0,0:12:20.85,0:12:27.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,two. An then, we show that those are joint\Nby adding a plus, premise three. Namely,
Dialogue: 0,0:12:27.00,0:12:33.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,my wife always gives me either a sweater\Nor a board game. Draw a line under them
Dialogue: 0,0:12:33.23,0:12:39.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and an arrow from those two together down\Nto the eventual conclusion, namely, four
Dialogue: 0,0:12:39.54,0:12:45.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that this time she must have given me a\Nboard game. The fact that the top arrow
Dialogue: 0,0:12:45.36,0:12:50.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,goes from premise one to two, but does not\Ngo from premise one to three indicates
Dialogue: 0,0:12:50.90,0:12:56.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that, that premises is a reason for two\Nbut is not a reason for three. So when you
Dialogue: 0,0:12:56.45,0:13:01.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,use this method to diagram arguments, you\Nhave to be careful where you draw the
Dialogue: 0,0:13:01.86,0:13:07.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arrows. And draw them only where there\Nreally is a rational connection. That is,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:07.20,0:13:12.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where one claim is being presenting as a\Nreason for that particular claim that the
Dialogue: 0,0:13:12.88,0:13:18.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arrow is pointing towards. Now, almost all\Narguments can be diagrammed using these
Dialogue: 0,0:13:18.40,0:13:23.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,three simple structures. That is, the\Nlinear structure, the branching structure,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:23.63,0:13:29.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the joint structure, and some combination\Nof those three. You can add more premises
Dialogue: 0,0:13:29.20,0:13:34.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because you can always add one plus two\Nplus three plus four if they're four
Dialogue: 0,0:13:34.43,0:13:39.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premises operating together in a joint\Nstructure. And, you can add extra arrows
Dialogue: 0,0:13:39.96,0:13:45.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if you have a branch with more than two\Nbranches. So, you can cover a lot of
Dialogue: 0,0:13:45.65,0:13:50.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arguments using these kinds of diagrams.\NThe method can be described in general,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:50.90,0:13:55.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like this. You start by identifying the\Npremises and the conclusions, and you
Dialogue: 0,0:13:55.27,0:13:59.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,number them. So that you can just have\Nnumbers instead of having to write out the
Dialogue: 0,0:13:59.87,0:14:04.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whole sentence on the diagram. Then, when\Nthey work together, you put a plus sign
Dialogue: 0,0:14:04.36,0:14:08.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,between them and draw a line under it to\Nindicate that they're working together.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:08.91,0:14:14.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They're functioning as a group. Then, you\Ndraw an arrow from the claims that are
Dialogue: 0,0:14:14.68,0:14:20.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reasons to the claims that they are\Nreasons for. And then, you move them
Dialogue: 0,0:14:20.10,0:14:25.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,around on the diagram so that they'll form\Na line when it's a linear structure and
Dialogue: 0,0:14:25.17,0:14:30.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,branches when it's a branching structure.\NBut, it will be easy to rearrange them so
Dialogue: 0,0:14:30.18,0:14:34.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as to show how all of the different\Npremises and conclusions work together in
Dialogue: 0,0:14:34.95,0:14:40.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a single argumentative structure. That's\Ngoing to be enough to accomplish this
Dialogue: 0,0:14:40.48,0:14:46.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stage of reconstruction. Namely, to\Norganize the parts and show how they work
Dialogue: 0,0:14:46.40,0:14:48.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,together in the overall argument.