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 --> 00:00:10,652 reconstructing arguments. Now, the point of reconstructing an 3 00:00:10,652 --> 00:00:15,276 argument is to put it in a shape that makes it easier for us to assess the 4 00:00:15,276 --> 00:00:20,085 argument more accurately and fairly for whether it's a good argument or a bad 5 00:00:20,085 --> 00:00:22,930 argument. And when we do the reconstruction, 6 00:00:22,930 --> 00:00:25,626 remember, you want to make it as good an argument 7 00:00:25,626 --> 00:00:29,807 as possible because you don't learn anything from putting down your enemies 8 00:00:29,807 --> 00:00:31,567 by making them look silly, right? 9 00:00:31,567 --> 00:00:36,079 If you want to learn from somebody else's argument, you need to put it in the best 10 00:00:36,079 --> 00:00:38,830 shape you can to make it look as good as possible. 11 00:00:38,830 --> 00:00:43,124 So, that's going to be the goal of reconstruction. And we are going to 12 00:00:43,124 --> 00:00:45,922 accomplish that goal in a series of stages. 13 00:00:45,922 --> 00:00:50,867 The first stage simply to do a close analysis and we talked about that last 14 00:00:50,867 --> 00:00:53,469 week. The second stage is to get down to 15 00:00:53,469 --> 00:00:56,462 basics. That is to remove all the excess words 16 00:00:56,462 --> 00:01:01,473 and focus on the premises and conclusions that really make up the argument and then 17 00:01:01,473 --> 00:01:05,508 put those into standard form. The third stage is to clarify those 18 00:01:05,508 --> 00:01:08,254 premises. They're not always going to be as clear 19 00:01:08,254 --> 00:01:12,791 as you like and that's going to take some work and it's going to include breaking 20 00:01:12,791 --> 00:01:16,193 them into parts. And then, the next stage is to take those 21 00:01:16,193 --> 00:01:20,789 parts and organize them, to put them in order, so you can see how the argument 22 00:01:20,789 --> 00:01:25,869 flows from one part to another. But not all arguments are complete so the 23 00:01:25,869 --> 00:01:30,960 next stage, we have to fill in the gaps, that is supply suppressed premises. 24 00:01:30,960 --> 00:01:36,012 And once we've done that, then the final stage is going to be assess the argument. 25 00:01:36,012 --> 00:01:39,942 If we are able to come up with a sound reconstruction, we know that the 26 00:01:39,942 --> 00:01:43,934 conclusion has to be true. Because as we learned in the previous 27 00:01:43,934 --> 00:01:47,490 lecture, the conclusion of sound arguments is always true. 28 00:01:47,490 --> 00:01:51,771 But if we don't come up with a sound reconstruction, then we've got to decide, 29 00:01:51,771 --> 00:01:56,275 is it the fault of the argument or is it our own fault because we didn't come up 30 00:01:56,275 --> 00:02:00,334 with a sound reconstruction when there really is one that we didn't find. 31 00:02:00,334 --> 00:02:02,614 So, that's going to be something we have to discuss. 32 00:02:02,614 --> 00:02:06,340 We're going to discuss all of these stages over the next few lectures. 33 00:02:06,340 --> 00:02:10,304 Now, the first stage of reconstruction is to do a close analysis. 34 00:02:10,304 --> 00:02:14,021 But we already learned how to do that, [LAUGH] that was easy. 35 00:02:14,021 --> 00:02:16,500 Boy, I hope the rest of them are that easy. 36 00:02:16,500 --> 00:02:21,958 This lecture is mainly going to be about the second stage, namely getting down to 37 00:02:21,958 --> 00:02:25,099 basics. And what we want to do is to pull out the 38 00:02:25,099 --> 00:02:29,570 explicit premise and conclusion from all the other words around it. 39 00:02:29,570 --> 00:02:33,467 And the first step is to remove all the excess verbiage. 40 00:02:33,467 --> 00:02:38,644 You know, it might seem very surprising but people often repeat themselves, I'm 41 00:02:38,644 --> 00:02:42,827 sure you've all run into it. I mean, you listen to somebody give a, a 42 00:02:42,827 --> 00:02:48,137 talk and it takes them fifty minutes to say what they could have said easily in 43 00:02:48,137 --> 00:02:53,050 five minutes and one of the reasons is that they say everything ten times. 44 00:02:53,050 --> 00:02:57,482 You know, for instance, people often say the same thing twice, they repeat 45 00:02:57,482 --> 00:03:00,559 themselves. They say the same thing over again and 46 00:03:00,559 --> 00:03:05,546 they restate the point in different words and they utter sentences that mean the 47 00:03:05,546 --> 00:03:08,439 same thing. And they say something and then, you 48 00:03:08,439 --> 00:03:12,071 know, they say it again and they make a claim twice or more. 49 00:03:12,071 --> 00:03:16,687 They exert exactly what they just said and they reformulate their claim in 50 00:03:16,687 --> 00:03:21,243 different words that are equivalent. They say it once and then, they say it 51 00:03:21,243 --> 00:03:24,997 again, you get the idea. Now, here is a real example from a US 52 00:03:24,997 --> 00:03:29,988 politician during a debate. I'm going to be honest with people, we 53 00:03:29,988 --> 00:03:36,264 can't eliminate this deficit. People have heard that over and over 54 00:03:36,264 --> 00:03:42,160 again in four years, we cannot do it, we're in too deep a hole. 55 00:03:43,380 --> 00:03:48,870 Now, if you think about it, it's going to be obvious that we cannot do it. 56 00:03:48,870 --> 00:03:53,980 Repeats, we can't eliminate this deficit, because that's what it's doing, it is 57 00:03:53,980 --> 00:03:58,480 eliminating the deficit. But also, we're in too deep a hole. 58 00:03:58,480 --> 00:04:02,299 Well, that's just a metaphorical way of saying the same thing. 59 00:04:02,299 --> 00:04:05,805 Why is the hole too deep? Because we can't get out of it. 60 00:04:05,805 --> 00:04:08,184 What hole is it? It's the deficit hole. 61 00:04:08,184 --> 00:04:12,253 So, to say we can't get out of this hole, we're in too deep a hole. 62 00:04:12,253 --> 00:04:16,197 It's just another way of saying we can't eliminate the deficit. 63 00:04:16,197 --> 00:04:20,330 So, in these three lines, he's already repeated himself three times. 64 00:04:20,330 --> 00:04:22,883 Now, why does this politician repeat himself? 65 00:04:22,883 --> 00:04:27,409 It might be that he thinks people will remember it better or one version will 66 00:04:27,409 --> 00:04:31,123 make more sense than another. But he might have a special reason 67 00:04:31,123 --> 00:04:34,895 because this was a live debate and he had to give a 90-second answer. 68 00:04:34,895 --> 00:04:38,957 So, he had to fill up the time. Sometimes people repeat themselves just 69 00:04:38,957 --> 00:04:43,193 to fill up the time or maybe to give himself time to think because he didn't 70 00:04:43,193 --> 00:04:47,546 have a real answer ready yet and repeating himself is easy while he thinks 71 00:04:47,546 --> 00:04:50,970 about what he's really going to say in the next few sentences. 72 00:04:50,970 --> 00:04:53,941 Fine. But repeating it still doesn't make the 73 00:04:53,941 --> 00:04:59,157 argument any better and we want to get down to the basics of the argument that 74 00:04:59,157 --> 00:05:04,703 is the parts of the argument that really affect how good it is, so we can cross 75 00:05:04,703 --> 00:05:08,796 out those repetitions that don't make the argument any better. 76 00:05:08,796 --> 00:05:11,570 So first, we can cross out we cannot do it. 77 00:05:11,570 --> 00:05:15,041 Then, we can cross out, we're in too deep a hole. 78 00:05:15,041 --> 00:05:20,139 We already saw that those are just repeating the claim that we can't 79 00:05:20,139 --> 00:05:24,645 eliminate the deficit. In addition, we can cross out, I want to 80 00:05:24,645 --> 00:05:30,629 be honest with people because that's not a reason to believe we're in too deep a 81 00:05:30,629 --> 00:05:33,958 deficit. And next, we can cross out that people 82 00:05:33,958 --> 00:05:37,562 have heard that over and over again in four years. 83 00:05:37,562 --> 00:05:43,256 Well, that might be seen as a reason to believe that we're in a deficit because 84 00:05:43,256 --> 00:05:48,661 everybody seems to say it, but let's assume that's not part of his argument 85 00:05:48,661 --> 00:05:52,380 here and we'll cross it out. Now, let's move on. 86 00:05:52,380 --> 00:05:57,688 A second form of excess verbiage that is words that don't contribute to the force 87 00:05:57,688 --> 00:06:01,379 of the argument is what I like to call road markers. 88 00:06:01,379 --> 00:06:06,170 A lot of times, people, you know, good speakers, they tell you what topic they 89 00:06:06,170 --> 00:06:09,536 are talking about and why they are talking about it. 90 00:06:09,536 --> 00:06:12,320 Why it's important and worth talking about. 91 00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:17,176 But to say why it's an important issue and to say what issue it is, doesn't 92 00:06:17,176 --> 00:06:22,097 provide any reason to believe that what they say about the issue is true or 93 00:06:22,097 --> 00:06:24,557 false. So, it doesn't contribute to the 94 00:06:24,557 --> 00:06:27,363 argument. Here's an example from the same 95 00:06:27,363 --> 00:06:30,490 politician in the same debate as we just saw. 96 00:06:30,490 --> 00:06:36,345 This politician said, now, I want to go back to the whole issue of healthcare, 97 00:06:36,345 --> 00:06:42,356 because we touched it, and I think the American people deserve to know what we 98 00:06:42,356 --> 00:06:46,587 would do different. And notice that he says, he's going to 99 00:06:46,587 --> 00:06:50,774 talk about healthcare but he doesn't say anything about healthcare. 100 00:06:50,774 --> 00:06:54,336 He didn't tell you what he's going to say about healthcare. 101 00:06:54,336 --> 00:06:57,211 All he says is he wants to go back to that issue. 102 00:06:57,211 --> 00:07:00,648 And he tells you why he wants to go back to that issue. 103 00:07:00,648 --> 00:07:05,585 But he doesn't add any reason to believe that what he's about to say about the 104 00:07:05,585 --> 00:07:08,440 issue is true. Now, this can, of course, still be useful 105 00:07:08,440 --> 00:07:13,482 because you might get confused about what the issue is and he might be changing the 106 00:07:13,482 --> 00:07:18,043 topic and he wants to signal that he is changing the topic, and that will help 107 00:07:18,043 --> 00:07:21,344 his listeners. But it still doesn't add to the argument, 108 00:07:21,344 --> 00:07:25,786 it doesn't give you any reason for the conclusion that he's going to want to 109 00:07:25,786 --> 00:07:28,427 draw. We can cross out these excess words. we 110 00:07:28,427 --> 00:07:33,048 can cross out, now, I want to go back to the whole issue of healthcare because 111 00:07:33,048 --> 00:07:36,590 that doesn't show that his views on healthcare are correct. 112 00:07:36,590 --> 00:07:38,996 And we can cross out because we touched it. 113 00:07:38,996 --> 00:07:43,361 That's a reason why we're going to that issue, but again, that doesn't give any 114 00:07:43,361 --> 00:07:47,390 reason why his views are correct. And we can even cross out, but I think 115 00:07:47,390 --> 00:07:51,867 the American people deserve to know what we would do different because the fact 116 00:07:51,867 --> 00:07:56,175 that they deserve to know what you're going to do doesn't show that what you're 117 00:07:56,175 --> 00:08:00,037 going to do is the right thing to do. So, none of these claims are really 118 00:08:00,037 --> 00:08:04,346 reasons that are going to be reasons for the main part of his argument, which is 119 00:08:04,346 --> 00:08:08,375 to support the particular views on healthcare that he's going to tell you 120 00:08:08,375 --> 00:08:13,219 about a few seconds after this. The next type of excess verbiage is 121 00:08:13,219 --> 00:08:17,365 tangents. People go off on tangents all the time. 122 00:08:17,365 --> 00:08:22,119 Here's an example. You know, you really ought to think about 123 00:08:22,119 --> 00:08:26,144 taking a History course. I, I still remember my History courses in 124 00:08:26,144 --> 00:08:29,179 college. There was this one time when, there was a 125 00:08:29,179 --> 00:08:34,010 dog that one of the students brought to class and, and the dog like barked and 126 00:08:34,010 --> 00:08:38,593 then he ran up on stage and he, he cut under the professor and knocked the 127 00:08:38,593 --> 00:08:41,442 professor on his rear-end. It was really funny. 128 00:08:41,442 --> 00:08:45,820 So, you know, I think that History is a good thing to study. 129 00:08:45,820 --> 00:08:50,513 Now, notice that all this stuff about the dog has nothing to do with History. 130 00:08:50,513 --> 00:08:55,206 It's no reason to take a History course instead of a Philosophy course or a 131 00:08:55,206 --> 00:08:59,714 Classics course or a Science course. The same thing could happen in those 132 00:08:59,714 --> 00:09:03,234 courses just as well. So, the tangent plays a certain role. 133 00:09:03,234 --> 00:09:06,198 It makes it interesting. It keeps your attention. 134 00:09:06,198 --> 00:09:09,224 Maybe it makes it memorable for you, what he said. 135 00:09:09,224 --> 00:09:14,164 But it doesn't actually provide a reason why you ought to take a History course. 136 00:09:14,164 --> 00:09:17,717 So, since those parts of the words were just 137 00:09:17,717 --> 00:09:24,207 a tangent that don't provide any reason we can cross them out, too, because they 138 00:09:24,207 --> 00:09:27,729 are excess verbiage. But sometimes, people go off on 139 00:09:27,729 --> 00:09:31,836 irrelevant tangents. Not just by accident because they lose 140 00:09:31,836 --> 00:09:36,151 their train of thought, but because they're trying to fool you. 141 00:09:36,151 --> 00:09:39,980 They're trying to produce what is called a red herring. 142 00:09:39,980 --> 00:09:45,452 The name red hearing supposedly comes from somebody who crossed the red herring 143 00:09:45,452 --> 00:09:49,923 over the trail and then the hound couldn't track its scent anymore. 144 00:09:49,923 --> 00:09:52,726 And that's basically what's going on here. 145 00:09:52,726 --> 00:09:57,732 Sometimes, people produce tangents that distracts you from the main line of 146 00:09:57,732 --> 00:10:02,804 argument because they know that there are weaknesses in that line of argument and 147 00:10:02,804 --> 00:10:06,796 they don't want you to notice them. That's what a red herring is. 148 00:10:06,796 --> 00:10:11,420 And it's a type of tangent that you have to learn to watch out for. 149 00:10:11,420 --> 00:10:16,802 Because if you want to see the problems in your opponent's arguments or even in 150 00:10:16,802 --> 00:10:22,392 your friend's arguments, then you need to not get distracted by tangents that are 151 00:10:22,392 --> 00:10:28,198 in effect red herrings. Yet, another example of excess verbiage 152 00:10:28,198 --> 00:10:32,850 is, well, examples. Here's an example of that. 153 00:10:32,850 --> 00:10:37,540 A different politician in the same debate said this. 154 00:10:37,540 --> 00:10:42,166 Here's what happened. In the time that they have been in office 155 00:10:42,166 --> 00:10:47,674 in the last four years, 1.6 million private sector jobs have been 156 00:10:47,674 --> 00:10:51,933 lost, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been 157 00:10:51,933 --> 00:10:55,311 lost. And it's had real consequences in places 158 00:10:55,311 --> 00:10:59,277 like Cleveland. Cleveland is a wonderful distinguished 159 00:10:59,277 --> 00:11:02,508 city. It's done a lot of great things, but it 160 00:11:02,508 --> 00:11:05,739 has the highest poverty rate in the country. 161 00:11:05,739 --> 00:11:11,800 One out of almost two children in Cleveland are now living in poverty. 162 00:11:11,800 --> 00:11:17,412 Now, notice that this politician is talking about the unemployment rate in 163 00:11:17,412 --> 00:11:21,154 the rest of the country, in the country as a whole. 164 00:11:21,154 --> 00:11:25,410 So, why bring in Cleveland? Well, you might be saying that Cleveland 165 00:11:25,410 --> 00:11:29,917 shows that there's problems throughout the rest of the country, but that can't 166 00:11:29,917 --> 00:11:32,632 be right because Cleveland is just one example. 167 00:11:32,632 --> 00:11:36,619 And it might be an outlier that doesn't represent the general trends. 168 00:11:36,619 --> 00:11:41,067 So, what he's doing with this example is he's trying to bring it down the home, 169 00:11:41,067 --> 00:11:45,732 and make you feel for the real effects. But he doesn't come out and say that you 170 00:11:45,732 --> 00:11:50,861 can generalize from Cleveland to the rest of the country, or that everyone else is 171 00:11:50,861 --> 00:11:54,802 suffering in exactly the same way. He's just giving one example. 172 00:11:54,802 --> 00:11:59,681 And so, it doesn't really support his general claim that the unemployment is a 173 00:11:59,681 --> 00:12:05,254 problem throughout the whole country. That means that it's not an extra premise 174 00:12:05,254 --> 00:12:11,830 in the argument and we can cross it out like other forms of excess verbiage. 175 00:12:11,830 --> 00:12:18,406 Now, we've seen that excess verbiage can take the form of repetition or road 176 00:12:18,406 --> 00:12:23,512 markers or tangents or examples. And people use these a lot. 177 00:12:23,512 --> 00:12:27,663 Matter of fact, I like to think of a general trick that 178 00:12:27,663 --> 00:12:31,017 people use called the trick of excess verbiage. 179 00:12:31,017 --> 00:12:36,582 A lot of people talk too much and they keep saying things over and over again, 180 00:12:36,582 --> 00:12:41,148 go off on tangents, and give more examples than they really need. 181 00:12:41,148 --> 00:12:45,929 And all of that is a way of hiding the problem with their position. 182 00:12:45,929 --> 00:12:51,280 It's a trick to use too many words because the real point gets lost in the 183 00:12:51,280 --> 00:12:56,213 middle of those words. So, you can fool people by throwing in 184 00:12:56,213 --> 00:13:01,346 those extra words. That's the trick of excess verbiage but 185 00:13:01,346 --> 00:13:04,895 be careful. What seems like excess verbiage that's 186 00:13:04,895 --> 00:13:09,466 just there to trick you might really be an essential part of the argument. 187 00:13:09,466 --> 00:13:14,007 So what you need to do when you have a passage and you're trying to get the 188 00:13:14,007 --> 00:13:18,817 argument out of it, is to cross out all the excess words but also look at what's 189 00:13:18,817 --> 00:13:21,846 left over. If what's left over is enough premises 190 00:13:21,846 --> 00:13:26,483 and conclusion to make a good argument, then the stuff that you crossed out 191 00:13:26,483 --> 00:13:30,687 probably really is excess. But if it turns out that what's left over 192 00:13:30,687 --> 00:13:36,066 is not a very good argument, to autocheck all those words you crossed out and make 193 00:13:36,066 --> 00:13:40,270 sure they really weren't necessary. because you're not being fair to the 194 00:13:40,270 --> 00:13:44,783 person that you're interpreting if you crossed out something that was an 195 00:13:44,783 --> 00:13:49,548 essential part of the argument. And some cases are going to be tricky. 196 00:13:49,548 --> 00:13:53,657 Its not going to be clear whether or not to cross the noun. 197 00:13:53,657 --> 00:13:57,473 Some small words that are tricky are guarding terms. 198 00:13:57,473 --> 00:14:01,949 Here is an example. I think Miranda is at home so we can meet 199 00:14:01,949 --> 00:14:04,517 her there. What's the guarding word? 200 00:14:04,517 --> 00:14:08,846 You already found that out when you did the close analysis, 201 00:14:08,846 --> 00:14:09,874 right? I think. 202 00:14:09,874 --> 00:14:15,524 Now, one way to read this argument is that the premises I think Miranda is at 203 00:14:15,524 --> 00:14:19,120 home and the conclusion is we can meet her there. 204 00:14:19,120 --> 00:14:23,693 But that's kind of weird because the fact that you think she is at home is not what 205 00:14:23,693 --> 00:14:27,932 makes it true that you can meet her there, it's the fact that she is at home 206 00:14:27,932 --> 00:14:29,438 that can make it the case that you can meet her there. 207 00:14:29,438 --> 00:14:33,676 So, if the premise is about what you think, and the conclusion is about where 208 00:14:33,676 --> 00:14:38,260 she is and where you can meet her, then the argument doesn't make any sense. 209 00:14:38,260 --> 00:14:42,920 So, in this case, what we want to do is to cross out the words I think, because 210 00:14:42,920 --> 00:14:47,395 that's going to make the argument silly and the argument really amounts to, 211 00:14:47,395 --> 00:14:50,129 Miranda is at home, so we can meet her there. 212 00:14:50,129 --> 00:14:55,039 And the I think covers that whole thing. It's saying, I think she's at home, so I 213 00:14:55,039 --> 00:14:59,140 think we can meet her there. But the argument doesn't involve some 214 00:14:59,140 --> 00:15:05,162 premise about what your thoughts are and contrast this with a different argument. 215 00:15:05,162 --> 00:15:09,208 Miranda is at home, so we can probably meet her there. 216 00:15:09,208 --> 00:15:12,319 Now, there's another guarding term, right? 217 00:15:12,319 --> 00:15:15,174 Probably. Can you get rid of that? 218 00:15:15,174 --> 00:15:19,839 Well, then the argument becomes Miranda is at home, so we can meet her there. 219 00:15:19,839 --> 00:15:24,248 But that's clearly not what the speaker was trying to say, if they included the 220 00:15:24,248 --> 00:15:27,373 word probably. They realized that the fact that she's at 221 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 222 00:15:31,837 --> 00:15:35,353 awhile to get there and she might leave while we're on the way. 223 00:15:35,353 --> 00:15:38,199 So, it's not fair to the person giving the argument. 224 00:15:38,199 --> 00:15:41,993 And it makes the argument look worse to cross out the word, probably. 225 00:15:41,993 --> 00:15:46,200 So, in that case, you want to keep the guarding term in order to properly 226 00:15:46,200 --> 00:15:51,061 represent the force of the argument. So, it looks like sometimes, you need to 227 00:15:51,061 --> 00:15:55,273 keep the guarding terms and sometimes, you need to cross them out. 228 00:15:55,273 --> 00:15:59,227 And there's not going to be any strict rule that you can follow. 229 00:15:59,227 --> 00:16:03,893 You have to use your sense of what's going to make the argument as good as 230 00:16:03,893 --> 00:16:06,939 possible. What's going to fit what the speaker was 231 00:16:06,939 --> 00:16:11,810 really trying to say. Another tricky case is assuring terms. 232 00:16:11,810 --> 00:16:15,540 Suppose I'm writing a letter of recommendation and I say, 233 00:16:15,540 --> 00:16:19,503 he is clearly a great worker. I know that. 234 00:16:19,503 --> 00:16:26,784 So, you ought to hire him. The assuring terms are clearly and I know 235 00:16:26,784 --> 00:16:30,559 that. But now, the question is, is the argument 236 00:16:30,559 --> 00:16:34,210 really first premise, he's clearly a great worker. 237 00:16:34,210 --> 00:16:38,680 Second premise, I know that. Conclusion, you ought to hire him. 238 00:16:38,680 --> 00:16:41,569 It's kind of weird. Again, if you think about it, because 239 00:16:41,569 --> 00:16:46,271 you're not hiring him because it's clear. If he's a great worker but it's not clear 240 00:16:46,271 --> 00:16:50,634 that he's a great worker, then you're still ought to hire him because he is a 241 00:16:50,634 --> 00:16:55,166 great worker. Or if he's a great worker and I don't know he's a great worker, you 242 00:16:55,166 --> 00:16:57,886 still ought to hire him because he's a great worker. 243 00:16:57,886 --> 00:17:02,078 The fact that I know it is irrelevant to whether you want to hire him because 244 00:17:02,078 --> 00:17:04,798 that's about my mental states not his abilities. 245 00:17:04,798 --> 00:17:09,047 So, that representation of the argument doesn't really capture the force of 246 00:17:09,047 --> 00:17:12,300 somebody who writes this letter of recommendation. 247 00:17:12,300 --> 00:17:17,831 So, we can cross out the words I know that and we can cross out clearly, and 248 00:17:17,831 --> 00:17:22,980 then the argument is he's a great worker so you ought to hire him. 249 00:17:22,980 --> 00:17:29,029 But contrast this example. I am certain that Jacob is cheating on 250 00:17:29,029 --> 00:17:34,920 his wife, so I ougt to tell her. Now, you might think I am certain that is 251 00:17:34,920 --> 00:17:38,017 just another assuring term so we can cross it out. 252 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 253 00:17:42,912 --> 00:17:46,179 her. But now, think about that argument. 254 00:17:46,179 --> 00:17:51,086 The mere fact that he's cheating on his wife doesn't mean I ought to tell her if 255 00:17:51,086 --> 00:17:55,509 I'm not certain because if I have some suspicions or I'm just guessing, but I 256 00:17:55,509 --> 00:18:00,294 really don't know, then I probably ought not to tell Jacob's wife that, you know, 257 00:18:00,294 --> 00:18:05,162 Jacob was cheating on her. So here, the force of the argument, does 258 00:18:05,162 --> 00:18:10,412 seem to depend on my certainty. If I'm not certain, I shouldn't tell her. 259 00:18:10,412 --> 00:18:15,084 If I am certain, maybe I should. So, we can't cross out the assuring term 260 00:18:15,084 --> 00:18:18,440 in this case because that would distort the argument. 261 00:18:18,440 --> 00:18:21,031 And, of course, some people might disagree with that. 262 00:18:21,031 --> 00:18:25,045 They might say, well, look, if you have some reason but your not certain then you 263 00:18:25,045 --> 00:18:28,063 ought to tell her and that could be controversial. 264 00:18:28,063 --> 00:18:32,860 But we're talking here not about what those people think but what the speaker 265 00:18:32,860 --> 00:18:36,081 thinks, the person giving this argument when this 266 00:18:36,081 --> 00:18:40,550 person said,"I'm I'm certain that Jacob is cheating on his wife." They seemed to 267 00:18:40,550 --> 00:18:45,545 indicate that to them, the fact that they are certain provides an even better 268 00:18:45,545 --> 00:18:50,803 reason why he should tell Jacob's wife. So, if we want to capture what the person 269 00:18:50,803 --> 00:18:56,061 giving the argument intended in this case, we have to leave them the assuring 270 00:18:56,061 --> 00:18:58,596 term. So, you're seeing one example, where you 271 00:18:58,596 --> 00:19:03,009 ought to get rid of the assuring terms. And another example, where you ought to 272 00:19:03,009 --> 00:19:06,944 keep the reassuring terms. And just like with guarding terms the 273 00:19:06,944 --> 00:19:10,899 same point applies. There is no mechanic rule that will apply 274 00:19:10,899 --> 00:19:14,336 to every case. You have to think through the argument 275 00:19:14,336 --> 00:19:19,200 and decide whether crossing out those words and removing them distorts the 276 00:19:19,200 --> 00:19:23,999 argument or instead, crossing them out makes the argument look even better 277 00:19:23,999 --> 00:19:29,122 because the point of removing excess verbiage is to get rid of the things that 278 00:19:29,122 --> 00:19:34,569 aren't necessary but keep everything that is necessary to make the argument look as 279 00:19:34,569 --> 00:19:39,753 good as it possibly can look. Finally, once we've removed all the 280 00:19:39,753 --> 00:19:43,222 excess verbiage, what's left over? The answer is the 281 00:19:43,222 --> 00:19:46,621 explicit premises and conclusion in the argument. 282 00:19:46,621 --> 00:19:52,379 The point of removing the excess verbiage was to separate those essential parts of 283 00:19:52,379 --> 00:19:56,195 the argument, those basics of the argument from all the 284 00:19:56,195 --> 00:20:00,145 stuff that's unnecessary. Of course, we still have to decide which 285 00:20:00,145 --> 00:20:02,804 ones are premises and which ones the conclusion, 286 00:20:02,804 --> 00:20:05,352 right? And that's why the close analysis helps 287 00:20:05,352 --> 00:20:09,339 because we indicated which ones were reason markers and which ones were 288 00:20:09,339 --> 00:20:13,826 conclusion markers and that lets you to identify that these are the premises and 289 00:20:13,826 --> 00:20:17,537 that's the conclusion. And so now, we can do step three. 290 00:20:17,537 --> 00:20:21,968 We can put the argument standard form. We put the premises above the line and we 291 00:20:21,968 --> 00:20:25,672 put dot pyramid, and then the conclusion below the line. 292 00:20:25,672 --> 00:20:30,929 And we've got the argument in standard form, which completes stage two of the 293 00:20:30,929 --> 00:20:34,934 reconstruction project. At this point, it's useful to look back 294 00:20:34,934 --> 00:20:39,740 at the passage and see whether you've gotten rid off all the excess included 295 00:20:39,740 --> 00:20:44,297 all of the basics of the argument. So, you can look at the passage and say, 296 00:20:44,297 --> 00:20:49,416 is everything that's not crossed out in a premise or a conclusion of the standard 297 00:20:49,416 --> 00:20:52,100 form. And if there's something that's still 298 00:20:52,100 --> 00:20:56,969 there in the passage that isn't used, you've got to decide at that point is it 299 00:20:56,969 --> 00:21:00,376 really excess or not. And, of course, if the argument looks 300 00:21:00,376 --> 00:21:04,977 really bad, you've got to look back and see whether it's missing something that 301 00:21:04,977 --> 00:21:09,461 you had crossed out as being excess verbiage when it really was an essential 302 00:21:09,461 --> 00:21:13,071 part of the argument. So, we can use this process of putting it 303 00:21:13,071 --> 00:21:17,923 into standard form as a test of whether we've performed properly the other step 304 00:21:17,923 --> 00:21:23,152 of getting rid of excess verbiage. So, steps two and three really work 305 00:21:23,152 --> 00:21:27,169 together in this stage two of getting down to basics. 306 00:21:27,169 --> 00:21:33,383 That's what helps us to use the different parts to see whether we've done each of 307 00:21:33,383 --> 00:21:34,445 them properly.