1 00:00:00,450 --> 00:00:08,550 Right now, we're onto the third week now, and this week we're going to learn how to identify and how to analyse arguments and how to set them out. 2 00:00:08,550 --> 00:00:10,110 Logic, books, style. 3 00:00:10,110 --> 00:00:17,270 And the point of doing this is it enables you to get rid of all sorts of things that were relevant to the argument and you set up the arguments. 4 00:00:17,270 --> 00:00:22,790 So the structure of the argument is very clear. That way it's much easier to evaluate. 5 00:00:22,790 --> 00:00:29,610 Okay, let's get started. Okay, just a brief recap, as usual, on last week. 6 00:00:29,610 --> 00:00:36,950 If you remember, we looked at the fact that there are two basic types of argument, deductive and inductive. 7 00:00:36,950 --> 00:00:42,720 And we saw that deductive arguments are such that. 8 00:00:42,720 --> 00:00:47,280 Come on, tell me. Don't look at your handouts. Tell me what a deed of argument is. 9 00:00:47,280 --> 00:00:53,360 How do you recognise it? Oh, woo hoo! 10 00:00:53,360 --> 00:00:58,470 I'm too good. Haven't you done well? You're absolutely right. That's right. 11 00:00:58,470 --> 00:01:02,670 The truth of the premise makes that the truth of conclusion certain. 12 00:01:02,670 --> 00:01:08,370 Or those of you who use the word guarantee. The truth of the premise guarantees the truth as a conclusion. 13 00:01:08,370 --> 00:01:18,040 Well done. That's absolutely right. Okay, then inductive arguments are such that. 14 00:01:18,040 --> 00:01:21,000 Good. Okay, I can hear that you've got it as well. 15 00:01:21,000 --> 00:01:25,470 I can put it slightly differently this week because if you remember last week we got into trouble with the 16 00:01:25,470 --> 00:01:31,740 way I phrase this is more or less because we don't want promises making less probable the conclusion, 17 00:01:31,740 --> 00:01:37,350 do we? So I've said the truth of the premise makes the truth of the conclusion more likely. 18 00:01:37,350 --> 00:01:46,860 And of course, as you know, it's either much more likely, as in the case of the sun has risen in there every day in the whole history of the universe. 19 00:01:46,860 --> 00:01:52,140 Therefore, it's likely it'll rise tomorrow. And it's really pretty likely, isn't it? 20 00:01:52,140 --> 00:01:57,120 It's almost certain or slightly more likely. 21 00:01:57,120 --> 00:02:02,760 So the fact that every time you've seen me I'd be wearing earrings makes it slightly more likely that the next time you see me, 22 00:02:02,760 --> 00:02:10,740 I'll be wearing earrings. So the the whereas deduction is an either or thing. 23 00:02:10,740 --> 00:02:17,750 Induction is a matter of degree. An argument is more or less strong. 24 00:02:17,750 --> 00:02:23,810 Good. We then looked at some examples of arguments that a deductively valid in virtue of their form. 25 00:02:23,810 --> 00:02:30,420 And you remember I was using the PS and Qs and so on to talk about things like modus opponent's modus tolan's and so on. 26 00:02:30,420 --> 00:02:34,140 So we've got if P, then Q P, therefore. 27 00:02:34,140 --> 00:02:40,350 Q That's valid in Virtu its form because it doesn't matter what you're talking about. 28 00:02:40,350 --> 00:02:50,070 It doesn't matter what sentences you put in for P or Q if these, if the structure of the argument is if P then Q P therefore. 29 00:02:50,070 --> 00:02:55,800 Q It will be valid. Okay, so then we looked at some arguments. 30 00:02:55,800 --> 00:03:04,050 Does the deductively valid in virtue of their contents. Can you remember any of those. 31 00:03:04,050 --> 00:03:16,100 This is a bit harder because they were only examples that we gave. Not quite sure. 32 00:03:16,100 --> 00:03:20,330 Lying is wrong, therefore we shouldn't lie. Exactly. 33 00:03:20,330 --> 00:03:30,050 Do you see how that is? If that's a deductively valid argument, it's in virtue of the meaning of the word wrong, isn't it? 34 00:03:30,050 --> 00:03:38,180 Lying is wrong. Therefore, we shouldn't lie. So the thought is that if you understand the word wrong properly, you'll see that if lying is wrong. 35 00:03:38,180 --> 00:03:42,950 If you believe lying is wrong, then you will also believe that you shouldn't lie. 36 00:03:42,950 --> 00:03:48,860 Doesn't mean you won't lie. But it does mean that if you do, you'll feel guilty or whatever. 37 00:03:48,860 --> 00:03:51,680 But that's in virtue of the meaning of the word wrong. 38 00:03:51,680 --> 00:04:08,850 Could you remember any other arguments that were valid in virtue of the content, the meaning of particular words? 39 00:04:08,850 --> 00:04:15,250 Um, right. I can't remember the particular example I used to, um. 40 00:04:15,250 --> 00:04:18,520 I didn't think that would have been one, actually. 41 00:04:18,520 --> 00:04:25,120 I might be wrong about that, but I have a feeling that was an example that I used of one of the ones that's valid in virtual form. 42 00:04:25,120 --> 00:04:29,260 OK. No, that came later. 43 00:04:29,260 --> 00:04:34,560 Temporal. Yes. OK. That was one. Can you remember how that went? 44 00:04:34,560 --> 00:04:38,410 OK. That's right. 45 00:04:38,410 --> 00:04:43,000 It's raining today. Therefore, tomorrow it will have rained today. 46 00:04:43,000 --> 00:04:52,300 Okay. And that that's because of the word tomorrow and our understanding of before and after and yesterday and today and so on. 47 00:04:52,300 --> 00:04:59,290 OK, good. Then we moved onto inductive arguments and we looked at several different examples of an inductive argument. 48 00:04:59,290 --> 00:05:05,230 Can you remember any of those? You mentioned wonderments ago. Yes. 49 00:05:05,230 --> 00:05:09,010 What was it about Einstein? It was an argument from authority. 50 00:05:09,010 --> 00:05:13,540 Good. Okay. So this man's an authority on this. 51 00:05:13,540 --> 00:05:18,630 Therefore, he said this. Therefore he's an authority on this. That's a bad way of looking at it. 52 00:05:18,630 --> 00:05:23,800 But but you can see it. That assumes the principle of what? 53 00:05:23,800 --> 00:05:30,520 What's behind every inductive argument? Logic. 54 00:05:30,520 --> 00:05:34,390 Yes. Continuity. 55 00:05:34,390 --> 00:05:40,030 Yes. Can anyone put it in the way I put it last week? There's a principle that Hume is most famous for. 56 00:05:40,030 --> 00:05:46,300 David Hume. He said the principle of the uniformity of of nature. 57 00:05:46,300 --> 00:05:50,710 That's right. So what's happened in the past will happen in the future. 58 00:05:50,710 --> 00:05:54,340 If it was like that in the past, it's going to be like that in the future. 59 00:05:54,340 --> 00:06:03,790 And so that's the principle of the uniformity of nature, which underlies every inductive argument and which can't itself be argued for. 60 00:06:03,790 --> 00:06:08,050 Because arguing for it takes us in a circle. Why is the future like the past? 61 00:06:08,050 --> 00:06:13,930 Because it always has been. Well, again, we're relying on induction, aren't we? 62 00:06:13,930 --> 00:06:17,260 OK, so we looked at some examples this week. 63 00:06:17,260 --> 00:06:23,830 We're going to be learning how to identify and analyse arguments and how to set them out to logic book style. 64 00:06:23,830 --> 00:06:30,370 So if you've got some arguments from this week that you had trouble analysing or you had trouble recognising, 65 00:06:30,370 --> 00:06:37,960 you'll be able to use the arguments that you found this week to practise what we're going to learn today. 66 00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:42,370 OK, so let's start by seeing an argument set out logic bookstall. 67 00:06:42,370 --> 00:06:49,630 You're getting sick of this argument, aren't you? I'm getting sick of this argument, but here it is again, set out logic, book style. 68 00:06:49,630 --> 00:06:54,610 Okay. You don't have to write out premise one in full. You can just put P one or you don't even have to put that. 69 00:06:54,610 --> 00:06:58,930 You can just assume that the premises come first and then the conclusion. 70 00:06:58,930 --> 00:07:06,190 But that's no argument set out logic bookstall. And you might say, well, what's the point of setting out arguments. 71 00:07:06,190 --> 00:07:11,500 Logic bookstall. Has anyone got any idea why. Why do we bother setting out arguments. 72 00:07:11,500 --> 00:07:23,270 Logic bookstall. Yes absolutely. 73 00:07:23,270 --> 00:07:30,240 It should make it stronger because what you're doing is setting out an argument logic bookstall is just identifying the argument. 74 00:07:30,240 --> 00:07:34,880 You therefore you shouldn't you shouldn't be able to make it either stronger or weaker. 75 00:07:34,880 --> 00:07:40,520 All you're doing is identifying what the argument is. So we're not evaluating it at the moment. 76 00:07:40,520 --> 00:07:55,760 We're just analysing it, just setting it out. Logic bookstall might social good. 77 00:07:55,760 --> 00:08:02,570 Absolutely. That's that's right. What we do in setting out an argument logic bookstall is we actually identify all the premises. 78 00:08:02,570 --> 00:08:07,070 So if there's this is a suppressed premise or an assumption, as Paul says, 79 00:08:07,070 --> 00:08:20,030 we try and make it explicit if we can do it in order to rearrange the sentences to work on the premises. 80 00:08:20,030 --> 00:08:24,290 Absolutely. It's a set format. So if you remember what was on there, you what premise. 81 00:08:24,290 --> 00:08:28,910 Premise, conclusion. So we know exactly what is being argued for. 82 00:08:28,910 --> 00:08:35,680 Because that's what the conclusion is, isn't it? And we know exactly what's being put forward as reasons for believing that thing. 83 00:08:35,680 --> 00:08:39,320 Which are the premises. Any other ideas on this one. One, two. 84 00:08:39,320 --> 00:08:58,310 And then we'll move on. That's right, because if you remember, I was asking you to identify the premises and the conclusion. 85 00:08:58,310 --> 00:09:02,870 Of course, you have to be able to do that to set out an argument, logic bookstall. 86 00:09:02,870 --> 00:09:06,820 But once you've done it, once you've set it out, logic Worstall, then it's obvious. 87 00:09:06,820 --> 00:09:12,710 Yeah. One, two gentlemen behind you is this. Yes. 88 00:09:12,710 --> 00:09:20,960 Or just going on out and it can do. 89 00:09:20,960 --> 00:09:24,530 Yes. Yes. Yes. That might also come later. 90 00:09:24,530 --> 00:09:32,800 Again, we'll have a look at that later on. One more. Easy to spot. 91 00:09:32,800 --> 00:09:37,960 Up to a point. As we'll see, Lord Copper. OK. 92 00:09:37,960 --> 00:09:43,750 I put down. That's the one we mentioned. It enables us to add suppressed premises. 93 00:09:43,750 --> 00:09:50,290 It enables us to eliminate cross references, irrelevancies and inconsistent terms. 94 00:09:50,290 --> 00:09:54,310 Okay. And that makes it much easier to identify the argument. 95 00:09:54,310 --> 00:09:58,150 We'll go through all this. So if you don't quite understand what I mean here, don't worry about it. 96 00:09:58,150 --> 00:10:07,360 Will, we'll cover it in a minute. And it makes it much, much easier to evaluate the argument, as I hope you'll see today. 97 00:10:07,360 --> 00:10:15,250 Okay. Right. On the surface of it, it's easy to set out arguments, logic bookstall. 98 00:10:15,250 --> 00:10:19,420 Let's try this one. You've you're familiar with this you've seen this argument before. 99 00:10:19,420 --> 00:10:25,760 First of all, tell me, what's the conclusion of this argument? Tell me what the. Which is the conclusion. 100 00:10:25,760 --> 00:10:32,630 Good. Edinburgh is north of Oxford. So premise one. 101 00:10:32,630 --> 00:10:36,920 Good. And I'm glad you left out the words since, because that's a logical word, isn't it? 102 00:10:36,920 --> 00:10:41,120 That doesn't. That's not actually part of the sentence. That is the premise. 103 00:10:41,120 --> 00:10:45,140 So you were absolutely right to leave this out. OK, premiss one then. 104 00:10:45,140 --> 00:10:53,540 So you're writing down Premiss one. Manchester is north of Oxford. Premies to Edinburgh is north of Manchester. 105 00:10:53,540 --> 00:10:59,210 Good. And the conclusion at Dobros, north of Oxford. And you left out since and and welldone. 106 00:10:59,210 --> 00:11:05,030 Those two are the logical words there, the words on which the validity of the argument hangs. 107 00:11:05,030 --> 00:11:11,480 As we'll see later. But we leave them out of the identification of the premise and the conclusion. 108 00:11:11,480 --> 00:11:19,870 Okay, let's try this one. What's the conclusion? Which is float. 109 00:11:19,870 --> 00:11:28,130 Yes. OK. The conclusion is which float premise one. Which is a made of wood. 110 00:11:28,130 --> 00:11:32,210 Wood floats. Good. Again, you left out the logical choice and that's right. 111 00:11:32,210 --> 00:11:36,980 Can I just give you a warning of this? And is a logical word. 112 00:11:36,980 --> 00:11:41,770 But and here is connecting which two parts of language. 113 00:11:41,770 --> 00:11:49,590 I mean, two of the same parts of language. What's it connecting here to? 114 00:11:49,590 --> 00:11:54,050 Two premises. Okay. But what a premises there. Sentences. So. 115 00:11:54,050 --> 00:11:57,860 And here is a sentence connector. Okay. 116 00:11:57,860 --> 00:12:03,500 We can connect any sentences we want here. Here it is used again connecting these two sentences. 117 00:12:03,500 --> 00:12:08,520 But what about this one? Oedipus is a black and white cat. 118 00:12:08,520 --> 00:12:15,410 Okay. It's and working as a sentence connective. There Oedipus is a black and white cat. 119 00:12:15,410 --> 00:12:21,290 What's it connecting their two adjectives or two predicates, as we would say in logic. 120 00:12:21,290 --> 00:12:23,030 So you've got to be a bit careful. 121 00:12:23,030 --> 00:12:34,250 And when you see and in a sentence sometimes and will be part of the content if it's not combining two sentences, but two predicates, are you with me? 122 00:12:34,250 --> 00:12:38,850 So just watch out for that. Keep keep an eye open for that. 123 00:12:38,850 --> 00:12:42,440 Right. Good. Well, we've set those two out logic bookstore's. Okay. 124 00:12:42,440 --> 00:12:46,220 Now try this one. Okay. 125 00:12:46,220 --> 00:12:52,000 Now I'm not serious about. You're trying that one right and minute, but we are going to do that one before the end of today. 126 00:12:52,000 --> 00:12:54,710 Okay. But this is another reason we set it out. 127 00:12:54,710 --> 00:13:01,160 Logic bookstall because you could look straight at those arguments and you can pretty well see what the form is, can't you. 128 00:13:01,160 --> 00:13:05,330 You can see the other ones. You can see whether they're good arguments, you can tell straight off. 129 00:13:05,330 --> 00:13:11,730 But this is now those of you who found arguments from magazines or newspapers this week. 130 00:13:11,730 --> 00:13:15,680 Were your arguments more like that one or more. Yes, I can. 131 00:13:15,680 --> 00:13:20,480 This is why they're so difficult, because actually when we're in the pub arguing with each other about whether 132 00:13:20,480 --> 00:13:25,040 euthanasia is acceptable or not or whether we should go for assisted suicide or not. 133 00:13:25,040 --> 00:13:31,730 We had all sorts of things to our arguments. We say things like, well, if that's true, I'm a Dutchman. 134 00:13:31,730 --> 00:13:40,090 What does that mean? If that's true, I'm a Dutchman, what does that mean in English? 135 00:13:40,090 --> 00:13:43,930 It's not true. So when I say if that's true, I'm a Dutchman. 136 00:13:43,930 --> 00:13:51,190 All I'm actually saying is that's not true. Okay. Let's see if I can think of another one. 137 00:13:51,190 --> 00:13:56,920 No, I can't, because I'm doing this off the top of my head. But in English, when we're talking, we use all sorts of colloquialisms. 138 00:13:56,920 --> 00:14:01,980 We add all sorts things. We add. We have all sorts of ums and ahs and ers. 139 00:14:01,980 --> 00:14:07,630 And it makes it very difficult to identify the argument itself. 140 00:14:07,630 --> 00:14:16,510 And that's what you're doing when you set out an argument. Logic book style is you're getting rid of all the irrelevancies. 141 00:14:16,510 --> 00:14:20,560 Okay, here's a set of steps for analysing arguments. 142 00:14:20,560 --> 00:14:24,730 I'm not using this microphone, by the way. Can people at the back hear me? 143 00:14:24,730 --> 00:14:29,350 Yeah. Okay, here's a set of steps for analysing arguments. 144 00:14:29,350 --> 00:14:36,850 We're going to follow these steps today. And I meant to actually write them out on the board and I forgot. 145 00:14:36,850 --> 00:14:40,540 So you'll have to keep referring back as I ask you, what do we do next? 146 00:14:40,540 --> 00:14:45,640 You'll have to keep referring back to slide eleven. Okay. 147 00:14:45,640 --> 00:14:52,930 Firstly, let's look at identifying premises and conclusions. We've we've already done quite a lot of this, so this is fairly easy. 148 00:14:52,930 --> 00:15:00,090 We looked to the argument indicators and I've given quite a few here and. 149 00:15:00,090 --> 00:15:04,650 Then we identify. Well, okay. In identifying the conclusion. What are we looking for? 150 00:15:04,650 --> 00:15:16,400 What? Tell me again what a conclusion is. Now the bit of revision. 151 00:15:16,400 --> 00:15:23,530 Now, careful. What is the conclusion? It's not the reason for the truth of the other premises. 152 00:15:23,530 --> 00:15:31,750 The other premises is what she said, that she isn't it. What? Stealthiness. 153 00:15:31,750 --> 00:15:35,410 That's right. It's what it is you're arguing for, isn't it? 154 00:15:35,410 --> 00:15:39,880 It's it's the final. You were just getting mixed up then. It's very easy to get mixed up. 155 00:15:39,880 --> 00:15:45,060 And when you get mixed up, of course, you invert it, which gets everything wrong. But that's easy to do. 156 00:15:45,060 --> 00:15:47,050 But the conclusion you can only tell, 157 00:15:47,050 --> 00:15:56,080 which is the conclusion by looking at the function of that sentence in the argument and what the conclusion is, is the thing you are arguing for. 158 00:15:56,080 --> 00:16:03,780 It's in effect, the statement you're making and then the premises are. 159 00:16:03,780 --> 00:16:08,310 The supporting evidence or the supporting reasons got to be a bit careful with 160 00:16:08,310 --> 00:16:14,490 evidence because they're not always their arguments rather than evidence. 161 00:16:14,490 --> 00:16:21,900 Yeah, exactly. So, yeah. Okay, good. Let's here's an easy one. 162 00:16:21,900 --> 00:16:25,470 Identify the argument indicators in these arguments. 163 00:16:25,470 --> 00:16:29,600 What about the first one, which is the argument indicator in this one. 164 00:16:29,600 --> 00:16:34,790 There are two actually since. Good. Is there another one. 165 00:16:34,790 --> 00:16:38,430 Four. Well done. You're getting good at this. Okay. What about this one? 166 00:16:38,430 --> 00:16:42,630 Put up your hands this time. I'm going to. Okay. 167 00:16:42,630 --> 00:16:52,500 What's the argument indicator in this one. Stick your hand up if you're. Once you found it. 168 00:16:52,500 --> 00:16:55,960 Because some people and I have to admit, I'm one of them. 169 00:16:55,960 --> 00:17:01,020 I think quite slowly. And if people yell out it's. 170 00:17:01,020 --> 00:17:09,020 They don't get a chance to think. OK, now you can all yell out together, because that's right. 171 00:17:09,020 --> 00:17:21,930 Yep. Good. What about this one? Put your hands up again. Quite easy, this one, isn't it? 172 00:17:21,930 --> 00:17:26,900 OK. Again, yep, there we are. And there it is. 173 00:17:26,900 --> 00:17:30,500 You got them all right. Oh, it's actually the red isn't very good, is it? Can you see that? 174 00:17:30,500 --> 00:17:36,380 I've marched on the mall in red. If you can't see, you'll see it on your hands out. 175 00:17:36,380 --> 00:17:45,500 That's a shame. I didn't realise that the red doesn't show. Okay, now we're going to practise looking at conclusions. 176 00:17:45,500 --> 00:17:49,370 We can we've done this before. So this is a difficult tool. 177 00:17:49,370 --> 00:17:57,150 What's the conclusion here? What is it? 178 00:17:57,150 --> 00:18:01,530 Have another shot. Don't yell out, okay? Have another look at the argument. 179 00:18:01,530 --> 00:18:08,160 Remind yourself what a conclusion is. And tell me Socrates is mortal. 180 00:18:08,160 --> 00:18:12,900 Yes. Why did you get that confused? I mean, there's a very good reason for getting it confused. 181 00:18:12,900 --> 00:18:18,920 What is it? What or what? It's not at the end. 182 00:18:18,920 --> 00:18:22,350 You are your you've been expecting to see the conclusion at the end. 183 00:18:22,350 --> 00:18:27,690 Haven't you? But but as you see from this one, it doesn't need to be at the end in this one. 184 00:18:27,690 --> 00:18:29,520 It's in the middle, isn't it? 185 00:18:29,520 --> 00:18:40,170 So it's a remember what I say that you can only tell, which is the conclusion by looking at the function of played by a particular sentence. 186 00:18:40,170 --> 00:18:46,950 The conclusion is the sentence you are arguing for. Okay, so here's the. 187 00:18:46,950 --> 00:18:52,140 And it's this in red. Just as you said, Socrates is mortal. 188 00:18:52,140 --> 00:18:59,350 Is the conclusion. Okay. Find the conclusion of this argument. 189 00:18:59,350 --> 00:19:15,590 Now put up your hand again rather than yelling out. And don't worry, if it takes you a bit of time. 190 00:19:15,590 --> 00:19:24,610 Some people just do think more slowly and that's fine. OK. 191 00:19:24,610 --> 00:19:29,610 What is it that you're brilliant? 192 00:19:29,610 --> 00:19:33,760 You are exactly right. Socialism was doomed to failure. OK. 193 00:19:33,760 --> 00:19:48,320 As picked out in red. And what about this one? 194 00:19:48,320 --> 00:19:58,450 Hands up. OK. 195 00:19:58,450 --> 00:20:06,510 Would you like to have a go? Yes. 196 00:20:06,510 --> 00:20:12,240 OK. They will continue to need help from industrial nations. Now here's a little hint for something that's come into you. 197 00:20:12,240 --> 00:20:21,070 Remember I said that setting something out logic bookstall enables you to remove cross references, irrelevancies and whatever the other one was. 198 00:20:21,070 --> 00:20:25,920 Okay, look at this one. Can you have an idea of what I meant there? 199 00:20:25,920 --> 00:20:30,810 Because this put up your hand if you can. If you think you see what I can mean. 200 00:20:30,810 --> 00:20:41,390 Okay. No, that's that's actually not what I mean there. 201 00:20:41,390 --> 00:20:43,130 I was thinking. 202 00:20:43,130 --> 00:20:50,780 I think you thought I meant in the whole argument, but actually I just mentioned they will continue to need help from industrial nations. 203 00:20:50,780 --> 00:20:53,240 Just look at the conclusion there. 204 00:20:53,240 --> 00:21:04,490 Can you see what I might have meant by saying we need to remove cross references and inconsistent terms and so on, these newly emerging nations? 205 00:21:04,490 --> 00:21:10,430 Well done. Will continue because this they is an honour for reference, isn't it? 206 00:21:10,430 --> 00:21:18,410 It takes us back to something that's already been said. And we need to identify that, because when we separate it out as the conclusion, 207 00:21:18,410 --> 00:21:24,590 we're left with a statement that actually that has no meaning does it in the they will continue to need to. 208 00:21:24,590 --> 00:21:34,550 Well, who's they? So we need to remove that cross reference and we'll be seeing how to do that later. 209 00:21:34,550 --> 00:21:38,120 Indeed there is. And we'll be looking at that later, I think. Good. Well done. 210 00:21:38,120 --> 00:21:42,770 OK. There's the conclusion, though. Picked out in red. 211 00:21:42,770 --> 00:21:49,250 I'll pick it out in green next week. Yes. 212 00:21:49,250 --> 00:21:53,780 Okay. That's a good idea. I'll do that. Yes, because it's already in bold. 213 00:21:53,780 --> 00:21:58,040 But I could easily do it. Or I could do it in capital letters. Good. 214 00:21:58,040 --> 00:22:03,230 OK. Identify all the premises of this argument. 215 00:22:03,230 --> 00:22:08,240 And don't forget that they might be a suppressed premise. Now, this is going to take you a little longer. 216 00:22:08,240 --> 00:22:14,940 Don't call out. You might have to write it down and put up your hands when you've identified the premises of that argument. 217 00:22:14,940 --> 00:22:55,990 And a hint. There are two of them. Put up your hand when you've finished. 218 00:22:55,990 --> 00:23:01,120 You'll have to paraphrase a little bit. And if you're finding that, don't don't worry about it. 219 00:23:01,120 --> 00:23:05,530 If you're thinking it can't be right because I'm not using exactly the same words. 220 00:23:05,530 --> 00:23:12,040 Don't worry about that. Paraphrase is fine. What you mustn't do is change the meaning of anything. 221 00:23:12,040 --> 00:23:19,520 But paraphrasing it to get the grammar right or whatever is fine. OK. 222 00:23:19,520 --> 00:23:27,390 Right. Would you like to tell us, sir? Yes. You must have. 223 00:23:27,390 --> 00:23:33,800 Yep, okay, that's premise one, right? 224 00:23:33,800 --> 00:23:41,840 Right. Socialism does not provide the incentives, the incentives are needed. 225 00:23:41,840 --> 00:23:46,070 Yes, that that would do OK. Any variation on those themes? 226 00:23:46,070 --> 00:23:51,350 So here it is, premise one. Incentives are needed for a prosperous economy. 227 00:23:51,350 --> 00:23:56,120 Premise to socialism did not provides incentives. Conclusion. 228 00:23:56,120 --> 00:24:02,340 Socialism was doomed to failure. OK. Do you see where both those premises come from? 229 00:24:02,340 --> 00:24:10,700 OK. They're needed. Which one is this suppressed premise? Yes, that's right. 230 00:24:10,700 --> 00:24:18,260 The first one was suppressed in the original argument. But. But it's made explicit as we set out the argument logic bookstall. 231 00:24:18,260 --> 00:24:24,640 And if you had any variation on this theme, that's fine, so long as it has the same meaning. 232 00:24:24,640 --> 00:24:36,470 Does anyone want to cheque some? A prosperous, a prosperous economy. 233 00:24:36,470 --> 00:24:50,730 Is needed. Well, I think what you'll think, well, is this what you're thinking of doomed to failure? 234 00:24:50,730 --> 00:24:56,670 I mean, you want something like you will only succeed if you have a prosperous economy, don't you? 235 00:24:56,670 --> 00:25:06,480 OK. That's really. You've got that in premise one, haven't you? 236 00:25:06,480 --> 00:25:12,450 Or you can have something like you have succeeded only a you if you have a prosperous economy. 237 00:25:12,450 --> 00:25:22,160 You could add that, OK. You don't need to me. I mean, quite honestly, if you make explicit everything, you might find yourself. 238 00:25:22,160 --> 00:25:28,080 That my mobile. No, it's yours. Good but bad. 239 00:25:28,080 --> 00:25:40,830 But better than this being mine. So sunset. Not everybody would think that not everybody was quite prosperous economy. 240 00:25:40,830 --> 00:25:50,610 I completely accept your point. I think you could easily add another premise and then you could say prosperous companies are needed for success. 241 00:25:50,610 --> 00:25:55,740 Incentives are needed for prosperous economies. Socialism did not provide incentives. 242 00:25:55,740 --> 00:25:58,890 Therefore, socialism was not a success or something. 243 00:25:58,890 --> 00:26:06,050 Do you see, I we could easily have added that one in as well and made explicit to suppress the premises. 244 00:26:06,050 --> 00:26:11,530 Yep. Fair enough. Okay. Anyone else have anything. Not quite. 245 00:26:11,530 --> 00:26:18,410 This. No. OK, good. Let's do it again with this one. 246 00:26:18,410 --> 00:26:25,790 So since many newly emerging nations do not have the capital, resources needed is necessary for sustained growth. 247 00:26:25,790 --> 00:26:37,030 They will continue to need help from industrial nations. You'll find actually, as you practise at this, it gets much, much easier. 248 00:26:37,030 --> 00:26:44,440 And another trick is if you're not quite seen, it is to identify, identify the sentences that make up the premise. 249 00:26:44,440 --> 00:26:50,650 If if you can I mean, here you've only got one sentence and then see what else you need to make. 250 00:26:50,650 --> 00:27:03,930 Make an argument. OK, let's let's try some menu. 251 00:27:03,930 --> 00:27:07,890 OK. So many newly emerging nations will continue to need help. 252 00:27:07,890 --> 00:27:20,090 Yep. And you won't have anything different. Yes, that's certainly implicit in that argument, so you can make it explicit if you like. 253 00:27:20,090 --> 00:27:36,470 Yep. OK. Well, no. 254 00:27:36,470 --> 00:27:44,870 Now, now, now you've got to be careful, because when you're identifying the premise, don't put in anything that you happen to believe. 255 00:27:44,870 --> 00:27:51,200 What you're doing is you're identifying the argument that whoever it is that wrote this is making now, 256 00:27:51,200 --> 00:27:57,860 we haven't we're not yet evaluating the argument. We may decide that they're wrong in all sorts of ways. 257 00:27:57,860 --> 00:28:01,820 But what we don't do is add things on. 258 00:28:01,820 --> 00:28:05,600 All we're doing here is sticking to the meaning of the original. 259 00:28:05,600 --> 00:28:09,560 We can paraphrase, but we mustn't change the meaning to change. 260 00:28:09,560 --> 00:28:14,680 The meaning is really bad. Really, really bad. 261 00:28:14,680 --> 00:28:18,380 OK. Is there anything else that anyone wants to try this. 262 00:28:18,380 --> 00:28:30,370 Oh yes. One more resources. 263 00:28:30,370 --> 00:28:41,180 Yup. Okay. And when when you're writing suppressed premises, try and be careful not to add more than you need for the argument that. 264 00:28:41,180 --> 00:28:46,250 I mean, let's have a look. Let's see what I put down. And then let's see whether we still need that. 265 00:28:46,250 --> 00:28:51,500 So I've put down many newly emerging nations do not have capital resources. 266 00:28:51,500 --> 00:28:55,100 Capital resources are necessary for sustained growth. 267 00:28:55,100 --> 00:29:03,260 If a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources, it will need help from industrial nations. 268 00:29:03,260 --> 00:29:12,080 Conclusion many newly emerging nations will need help from industrial nations. 269 00:29:12,080 --> 00:29:20,910 Well, is it? Now, remember, in the very first week, we looked at the difference between implication and entailment. 270 00:29:20,910 --> 00:29:25,140 Does anyone remember what the difference between implication and entailment is? 271 00:29:25,140 --> 00:29:29,010 And don't worry if you do it, because it's it's a very sophisticated distinction. 272 00:29:29,010 --> 00:29:43,940 But it's important to realise if we've got an if then statement, all we asserting either is the antecedent the if clause or the consequent. 273 00:29:43,940 --> 00:29:50,250 The then close. Or are we just saying if P, then Q. 274 00:29:50,250 --> 00:29:59,090 We're not actually claiming that P or Q Alwi. If we say if P, then Q. 275 00:29:59,090 --> 00:30:06,250 Are you with me? So. So is there a conclusion in if P, then Q. 276 00:30:06,250 --> 00:30:14,960 Is does something of that structure have the premise and conclusion's structure that would make it an argument? 277 00:30:14,960 --> 00:30:22,520 No, it doesn't, does it? What it has is two sentences combined with the logical phrase if then. 278 00:30:22,520 --> 00:30:27,980 But actually, you're you're not claiming anything and you're not backing up anything by offering reasons. 279 00:30:27,980 --> 00:30:43,630 So it's not an argument. It's an implication. Do you understand that Prospero's industrial nations. 280 00:30:43,630 --> 00:30:50,780 And that would be a case of putting in a suppressed premise too far from my perspective. 281 00:30:50,780 --> 00:30:57,710 And I think that's because we we haven't specified what help they need here. 282 00:30:57,710 --> 00:31:01,920 We're just saying. OK. 283 00:31:01,920 --> 00:31:12,460 You've got. If not, then that and that saying the F is. 284 00:31:12,460 --> 00:31:19,990 True, if you like, so then that we don't actually need to spell out what that is. 285 00:31:19,990 --> 00:31:25,150 I can see why you want that, but I would say it's not necessary for the argument. 286 00:31:25,150 --> 00:31:30,490 World. You can just say what? Well, Van. 287 00:31:30,490 --> 00:31:38,400 Would need help from the World Bank. You say you destroy the argument by saying, well, fine. 288 00:31:38,400 --> 00:31:50,720 Well, results. Well, yes. 289 00:31:50,720 --> 00:31:54,960 Did. The fact is what we're doing is we're identifying the argument. 290 00:31:54,960 --> 00:31:58,680 We're not evaluating it yet. Do you see? Do you see the difference? 291 00:31:58,680 --> 00:32:03,690 We're just identifying it. Then we evaluate it. So we do have to let the content go. 292 00:32:03,690 --> 00:32:11,070 But he is quite right that if there is another suppressed premise that that's needed for the argument, we need to bring it out. 293 00:32:11,070 --> 00:32:35,670 But I don't think that was one of them. Premise, the third one would be that the industrial nations have a spare capital. 294 00:32:35,670 --> 00:32:40,080 Well, it's this argument saying what sort of help they need from. 295 00:32:40,080 --> 00:33:02,940 I mean, I agree it's an implication there, but I don't think it's. OK. 296 00:33:02,940 --> 00:33:11,400 So it could be that instead of it will need help, we should change that help to capital resources. 297 00:33:11,400 --> 00:33:19,200 Do you see what I mean? So so it would then read many new names, emerging nations do not have capital resources. 298 00:33:19,200 --> 00:33:22,470 Capital resources are necessary for sustained growth. 299 00:33:22,470 --> 00:33:31,870 If a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources, it will need capital resources from industrial nations. 300 00:33:31,870 --> 00:33:37,830 Do you see what I mean? And then they in the same way would say many newly emerging nations will need capital 301 00:33:37,830 --> 00:33:42,780 resources from sustain so that we would be getting the premise that you want in. 302 00:33:42,780 --> 00:33:57,210 By removing inconsistent terms rather than by adding another premiss. 303 00:33:57,210 --> 00:34:03,510 But. But I'm saying it is. Well, I'll tell you what. Let's come back to this when we've looked at inconsistent terms. 304 00:34:03,510 --> 00:34:07,410 Because I hope then I'll be able to convince you that it is actually in there. 305 00:34:07,410 --> 00:34:13,850 It's just in there in an inconsistent way. OK. But but do remind me to come back. 306 00:34:13,850 --> 00:34:24,660 This is from industrial. 307 00:34:24,660 --> 00:34:32,640 Well, no, because the conclusion is that they will need help. I mean, don't forget, the premises may be false. 308 00:34:32,640 --> 00:34:40,300 I mean, nobody's saying that the premises are true at the moment. We're just wanting to identify the premise that, well, 309 00:34:40,300 --> 00:34:47,160 that's we worry about later when we're not evaluating the arguments at the moment, we're just analysing it. 310 00:34:47,160 --> 00:34:57,170 We're putting down exactly what was said in the argument or what was said and what was implied in the argument. 311 00:34:57,170 --> 00:35:09,680 Why? Well, I think if we change that to capital resources, it does say that. 312 00:35:09,680 --> 00:35:10,100 I mean, 313 00:35:10,100 --> 00:35:20,960 aren't we implying in this argument that the help that the industrialised nations are giving to the newly emerging nations is capital resources? 314 00:35:20,960 --> 00:35:29,270 Yes, absolutely, yes. But that's why when when we get round to removing inconsistent terms, which we haven't got round to yet. 315 00:35:29,270 --> 00:35:33,380 That's one of the things we would want to make explicit. 316 00:35:33,380 --> 00:35:38,900 So there are different ways of making things explicit. One is by adding suppressed premises. 317 00:35:38,900 --> 00:35:44,020 And another is by by removing inconsistent terms. 318 00:35:44,020 --> 00:35:54,920 And well, I've already promised we'll come back to this argument when we've done that and make sure that we're clear on that. 319 00:35:54,920 --> 00:36:02,240 I wouldn't not at the moment, I wouldn't. 320 00:36:02,240 --> 00:36:07,240 OK, now you've done so well. We're going to try. The really complicated argument. 321 00:36:07,240 --> 00:36:11,890 Okay. We'll do that for the rest of this session. Here's the argument. 322 00:36:11,890 --> 00:36:18,630 Okay. This is the one by the end of this session, you will have analysed this argument and seen how it works. 323 00:36:18,630 --> 00:36:24,300 Okay. Firstly, identify the conclusion of this argument. 324 00:36:24,300 --> 00:36:28,400 Okay. Right. Who wants to. Who hasn't had to go. Would you like to have a go. 325 00:36:28,400 --> 00:36:34,640 What's the answer. Oh sorry. I was asking the lady the. 326 00:36:34,640 --> 00:36:43,470 You deserve to get stretched. There's a bit more to it than that. 327 00:36:43,470 --> 00:37:00,010 That is part of the conclusion. Well, it's not if you tickler tummy's it, it's if you if. 328 00:37:00,010 --> 00:37:10,030 OK. Somebody is somebody else. She didn't just she didn't want you to tickle a tummy, OK? 329 00:37:10,030 --> 00:37:18,950 Nope, wrong. So if the cool thing did. 330 00:37:18,950 --> 00:37:20,780 Absolutely as the whole sentence. 331 00:37:20,780 --> 00:37:29,450 It's actually a conditional conclusion, if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserved to get scratched. 332 00:37:29,450 --> 00:37:34,910 So it's not that you deserve to get scratched on its own because it's you only deserve to get scratch. 333 00:37:34,910 --> 00:37:38,790 If she did want you to tickle her tummy. Do you see what I mean? 334 00:37:38,790 --> 00:37:42,080 That's the whole thing is a conditional conclusion. 335 00:37:42,080 --> 00:37:51,380 And you said something like, if you tickled to me and I wasn't sure whether you were leaving out there, if she wanted you to tickle her tummy, 336 00:37:51,380 --> 00:37:59,120 because actually that's that's very important because there's a big difference between you tickled her tummy and she wanted you to tickle her tummy, 337 00:37:59,120 --> 00:38:06,710 isn't there? And for the purposes of this argument, that's actually quite an important difference. 338 00:38:06,710 --> 00:38:14,690 So the conclusion and I said there was a nice large argument indicator right in front of it and here it is. 339 00:38:14,690 --> 00:38:19,160 So if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserved to get scratched. 340 00:38:19,160 --> 00:38:25,930 That's the conclusion. OK, everyone happy with that? 341 00:38:25,930 --> 00:38:36,540 Can you see that the fact that it's a conditional sentence, a complex sentence doesn't stop it from being a conclusion because a conclusion is what? 342 00:38:36,540 --> 00:38:42,980 Again, it's it's the declaim for which you're arguing. 343 00:38:42,980 --> 00:38:47,480 That's right. It's a statement you're making and that you're backing up with reasons. 344 00:38:47,480 --> 00:38:54,070 OK. What's the next thing we do? Having identified the conclusion, we identify the premises. 345 00:38:54,070 --> 00:39:12,030 OK. Identify the premises of that argument. Yes. 346 00:39:12,030 --> 00:39:18,270 Yes. There's sometimes within an argument. You get sort of sub arguments, but don't worry about that. 347 00:39:18,270 --> 00:39:23,130 Treat it as a premise, not a conclusion. Okay. I think we're getting there. 348 00:39:23,130 --> 00:39:27,900 I'm going to reveal what I've got. And then you can tell me if you've got something else. 349 00:39:27,900 --> 00:39:36,840 Okay. This is premise one. Well, perhaps she didn't want you to take all her tummy or she didn't realise that's what you were going to do. 350 00:39:36,840 --> 00:39:42,390 Now, I've just realised that I've I've misled you in something because I can. 351 00:39:42,390 --> 00:39:49,040 I praised you for leaving out the argument indicators, whereas actually the only argument in the cases I want you to leave out of that, 352 00:39:49,040 --> 00:39:58,980 since this is in full force and so on, this or here is making this these two sentences into a complex sentence. 353 00:39:58,980 --> 00:40:02,340 So it's you should leave that in. OK. 354 00:40:02,340 --> 00:40:10,090 So the premise that you can see the structure that can't you P or Q So the or is part of it. 355 00:40:10,090 --> 00:40:16,740 Yeah. No you mustn't. 356 00:40:16,740 --> 00:40:25,770 The only one you can actually separate like that is and because if you have P and Q then just two separate premises will do. 357 00:40:25,770 --> 00:40:33,930 But if you have P or Q do you see that the or is rather different isn't it logically. 358 00:40:33,930 --> 00:40:39,420 You can't just have one. If, if I say look, here's a way of doing it. 359 00:40:39,420 --> 00:40:46,290 And we're taking. If I've got a pen. Yes. Right. 360 00:40:46,290 --> 00:40:55,350 We're moving ahead a little bit here and what I'm going to tell you. So if you start getting confused, just stop your ears up. 361 00:40:55,350 --> 00:41:04,530 When we eventually get round to evaluating arguments, what we try and do is to set out the conditions under which each premise is true. 362 00:41:04,530 --> 00:41:08,760 So we can then set out the conditions under which they're all true together. 363 00:41:08,760 --> 00:41:13,210 Okay. Don't worry about how we do that at the moment. It's just that's what we try and do. 364 00:41:13,210 --> 00:41:22,050 Now, if I look at P and Q, I can say, well, this is true. 365 00:41:22,050 --> 00:41:31,830 This whole sentence is true, isn't it? If there's one world in which P is true and Q is true, is that right? 366 00:41:31,830 --> 00:41:37,740 Do you see intuitively that. So what is it for P and Q to be true. 367 00:41:37,740 --> 00:41:46,650 Well it's for P to be true and Q to be true in the same world or in the same situation if you prefer. 368 00:41:46,650 --> 00:41:52,800 So I can represent it just with one line and putting P and Q on the same line. 369 00:41:52,800 --> 00:41:59,700 Whereas if I say P or Q I can't do that can I. 370 00:41:59,700 --> 00:42:12,120 P or Q is true just in case. What's your eyes appears true or Q is true, or sometimes both. 371 00:42:12,120 --> 00:42:19,150 So I'll have to draw two lines and put P on one line and Q on the other wouldn't I. 372 00:42:19,150 --> 00:42:26,110 In order to say P or Q, so they have the different words, different logical words. 373 00:42:26,110 --> 00:42:34,670 And you see how if I separate the P and Q in one premiss, it doesn't really matter. 374 00:42:34,670 --> 00:42:43,900 Whereas if I separate the P or Q, it does matter because then I've only got one on each line. 375 00:42:43,900 --> 00:42:46,720 So I must keep it together. 376 00:42:46,720 --> 00:42:55,300 In fact, what I should do is keep them all together just because at this moment you don't know what the difference between and and or and so on is. 377 00:42:55,300 --> 00:43:01,990 So. Any any complex sentence. Just keep them together. 378 00:43:01,990 --> 00:43:10,470 OK. Did anyone have something different from that other than just separating the two sentences and then actually you're separating the two sentences, 379 00:43:10,470 --> 00:43:14,640 was because I misled you in the beginning, so don't knock yourself for that. 380 00:43:14,640 --> 00:43:20,360 Just saying my complete confusion. I can't understand why not separate. 381 00:43:20,360 --> 00:43:25,510 I could understand if there was some sort of dependence on the other part. 382 00:43:25,510 --> 00:43:30,700 There doesn't seem to be any. Well, what. Think about what we're doing here. 383 00:43:30,700 --> 00:43:37,020 Do you remember I said we've got to keep the meaning. The meaning has got to be the same whatever else we do. 384 00:43:37,020 --> 00:43:42,450 Now, this sentence is saying either this is true, all this is true. 385 00:43:42,450 --> 00:43:50,170 Is that right? OK. So if we separate them, so we've lost the all. 386 00:43:50,170 --> 00:44:01,910 We've just got this is true. And this is true just she did not want you to take and it doesn't matter whether she realises what you're doing or not, 387 00:44:01,910 --> 00:44:09,250 she still doesn't want you to take her. So they still stand independently. Regardless, they there are two independent senators. 388 00:44:09,250 --> 00:44:13,630 I completely agree you. I mean, it might be true that she did what you didn't want you to tickler, 389 00:44:13,630 --> 00:44:23,080 and it might be true that she didn't realise that you were going to take her. But what this sentence says is that either this or this. 390 00:44:23,080 --> 00:44:26,460 And that's what we have to get. I mean, I'll tell you what. OK. 391 00:44:26,460 --> 00:44:30,190 So so the premise of the argument is we start off with either this or this. 392 00:44:30,190 --> 00:44:38,250 Do you remember the first when we were doing the arguments on either side? 393 00:44:38,250 --> 00:44:43,410 We'll look at P or Q P. 394 00:44:43,410 --> 00:44:46,780 Sorry, not P, therefore. Q Okay. 395 00:44:46,780 --> 00:44:51,180 Do you remember that argument, P or Q not P, therefore. 396 00:44:51,180 --> 00:44:55,080 Q I understand. Okay. It's not the same here. 397 00:44:55,080 --> 00:45:03,930 What. OK. One. OK. Now I'm not understanding why not. There is a statement which she doesn't want you to take a look at me. 398 00:45:03,930 --> 00:45:10,560 Now if that is the case, it doesn't matter whether she realised you wanted to see me or not. 399 00:45:10,560 --> 00:45:15,750 Her reaction was independent of knowing. But why is that a problem? 400 00:45:15,750 --> 00:45:21,150 Because remember here, the two sentences are completely independent of each other. 401 00:45:21,150 --> 00:45:25,170 We talked about it. It's if it's it's either sunny or rainy. 402 00:45:25,170 --> 00:45:33,050 Now, that shouldn't give you the. Because we could say it's either sunny or windy. 403 00:45:33,050 --> 00:45:37,140 But you can't say if it's sunny, then it's not windy. 404 00:45:37,140 --> 00:45:44,880 But we haven't said that. If then is completely different from or if there is a different logical claim. 405 00:45:44,880 --> 00:45:53,460 So what was this, again, the right time? No, no, I'm sure you're not the only person who's confused by this. 406 00:45:53,460 --> 00:45:58,410 All this has here is either this is true or this is true. 407 00:45:58,410 --> 00:46:03,150 The next witness and this says this isn't true. 408 00:46:03,150 --> 00:46:09,290 Therefore, this must be. So listen to the logic again. Either this or this. 409 00:46:09,290 --> 00:46:13,560 Sorry, I ultra either this or that. Not. 410 00:46:13,560 --> 00:46:21,670 This therefore that. And it doesn't matter what this all that is. 411 00:46:21,670 --> 00:46:29,140 Do you see what I mean? So so here we say she didn't want you to tickle her or she didn't realise what you were going to do. 412 00:46:29,140 --> 00:46:34,600 She didn't want you to tickle. There he is. 413 00:46:34,600 --> 00:46:40,930 Well, yeah, but yeah, but hang on. This is old, but nothing follows from this is only one premiss. 414 00:46:40,930 --> 00:46:45,880 We've got to get the whole argument before anything follows. You don't have to be able to do that. 415 00:46:45,880 --> 00:46:51,250 No, I was just using that to illustrate that the all can stand between two. 416 00:46:51,250 --> 00:47:00,550 Two Independents sentence's. Doesn't matter what the sentences are, their content is irrelevant. 417 00:47:00,550 --> 00:47:06,440 OK. If you still don't understand that CMA offers a is anyone else still bothered by that? 418 00:47:06,440 --> 00:47:10,220 Put your hands up if you want me to go over that again. No. 419 00:47:10,220 --> 00:47:13,910 OK. See me afterwards. If you're still hung, goes it OK? 420 00:47:13,910 --> 00:47:22,450 Does anyone have anything else for Premiss one than this other than having divided the two up? 421 00:47:22,450 --> 00:47:29,350 No. OK. Good. Premise two. If she didn't realise, then you obviously went about it in the wrong way. 422 00:47:29,350 --> 00:47:36,620 Does anyone have something different for that? No premise three. 423 00:47:36,620 --> 00:47:42,950 In that case, you deserve to get scratched unless you really thought she was such a perceptive cat, should understand what Wolf meant. 424 00:47:42,950 --> 00:47:49,050 Roll over. Sorry, say that again. 425 00:47:49,050 --> 00:47:57,890 Why do you think that space you deserve? What you is unless you really thought you were such a. 426 00:47:57,890 --> 00:47:58,130 Well, 427 00:47:58,130 --> 00:48:07,310 because remember that you're not evaluating the argument at this point or what you're doing is you're trying to capture the meaning of each premise. 428 00:48:07,310 --> 00:48:11,270 If you left out in that case, you deserved to get scratched. 429 00:48:11,270 --> 00:48:17,170 Unless. So you just have. 430 00:48:17,170 --> 00:48:27,540 Unless you just have unless you really thought she was such a perceptive, got all that [INAUDIBLE], and that's not even a sentence, is it? 431 00:48:27,540 --> 00:48:33,380 In order to be a premise, it has to be a sentence. It might be a complex sentence, but it has to be a sentence. 432 00:48:33,380 --> 00:48:38,860 Yep. You want to have anything different there? No good. 433 00:48:38,860 --> 00:48:43,720 You're doing very well. Premise four, if you thought that you're an idiot but you're not an idiot. 434 00:48:43,720 --> 00:48:53,530 You're just twisted. Anyone have anything different for that? 435 00:48:53,530 --> 00:49:05,830 If you thought that you were sorry, what did you have? OK. 436 00:49:05,830 --> 00:49:12,500 OK. At this point, I actually sympathise with your having left that out and you'll see why in a minute. 437 00:49:12,500 --> 00:49:16,550 But you shouldn't have left it out at this point because it is actually in there. 438 00:49:16,550 --> 00:49:19,130 So. So you should put it in. What are you going to say? 439 00:49:19,130 --> 00:49:33,260 Well, I was like, OK, at the moment we're not removing irrelevancies, but perhaps when we do, we'll take this out. 440 00:49:33,260 --> 00:49:40,520 But at the moment, we'll leave it in. Okay. But but your intuition that it's irrelevant is is a good one. 441 00:49:40,520 --> 00:49:49,910 As you'll see in a minute. Okay. So there's the arguments set out, logic books style as it actually stands at the moment. 442 00:49:49,910 --> 00:49:55,010 But of course, we haven't finished at the moment because we need to remove all sorts of bits and pieces. 443 00:49:55,010 --> 00:50:02,060 So on your list of the steps to set out an argument logic bookstall, what's the third step? 444 00:50:02,060 --> 00:50:09,380 We've identified the premises and the conclusions. What do we do next. Sorry. 445 00:50:09,380 --> 00:50:13,370 Right. Actually, I'll tell you now there aren't any suppressed premises so. 446 00:50:13,370 --> 00:50:20,370 So we don't have to worry with that here. What's the next step. Remove irrelevancies. 447 00:50:20,370 --> 00:50:24,940 Okay. Let me see how we've done that. 448 00:50:24,940 --> 00:50:27,950 Okay. What we need to do is take each premiss separately. 449 00:50:27,950 --> 00:50:34,970 Now the nice thing about having identified the premises and the conclusions separate is we can treat each one separately now. 450 00:50:34,970 --> 00:50:39,800 We do not have to do them all all at the same time. And that that's helps us. 451 00:50:39,800 --> 00:50:48,140 So let's look at Premiss one and let's remove the irrelevancies from Premiss one. 452 00:50:48,140 --> 00:50:54,440 Just get rid of any words that are not contributing to what that sentence means. 453 00:50:54,440 --> 00:51:01,100 This is just bits of fluff, if you like. Well, yes, that can go Cantet. 454 00:51:01,100 --> 00:51:06,380 I mean, that doesn't do anything. What else? Anything else? 455 00:51:06,380 --> 00:51:16,220 Perhaps. I think perhaps I can go as well. Yes. Okay. There's one more word I'd get rid of. 456 00:51:16,220 --> 00:51:19,940 Actually. Not all. 457 00:51:19,940 --> 00:51:25,010 No, tell me. Who said tell me? 458 00:51:25,010 --> 00:51:27,440 Yeah, you can get rid of Tommy. Can't you? 459 00:51:27,440 --> 00:51:33,110 So what you've got is she didn't want you to take her or she didn't realise that was what you were going to do. 460 00:51:33,110 --> 00:51:38,630 So here we are. The green is green is in the red. Okay. 461 00:51:38,630 --> 00:51:48,150 So if we get rid of well, perhaps and Tommy, we've got she didn't want you to tickle her or she didn't realise that's what you were going to do. 462 00:51:48,150 --> 00:51:53,220 Okay. Let's try premise to. 463 00:51:53,220 --> 00:52:01,410 What have you got then? And obviously, if she didn't realise, then I'll leave then. 464 00:52:01,410 --> 00:52:08,340 Yes. But they obviously can go concert. The obvious is just a bit of, you know, whether it was obvious or not is completely irrelevant. 465 00:52:08,340 --> 00:52:11,520 It might not have been obvious. It wouldn't really matter, would it? 466 00:52:11,520 --> 00:52:22,380 Okay, so we take out the obviously next premise three you'd take out only really unless you really thought you can certainly take out. 467 00:52:22,380 --> 00:52:35,940 Really? Yeah. Not in that case, why not in that case? 468 00:52:35,940 --> 00:52:40,350 Can anyone exactly the reverse? 469 00:52:40,350 --> 00:52:49,380 It says if this if that is true, then something so in that case is really very important. 470 00:52:49,380 --> 00:52:55,470 Okay, I'll show you what I'd take out. I'd take out the lot. Yep. 471 00:52:55,470 --> 00:53:00,870 In that case, you deserved to get scratched, because actually, if you look at the fourth premiss, 472 00:53:00,870 --> 00:53:08,040 which I'd also take out completely, if you thought that you're an idiot but you're not an idiot, you're just twisted. 473 00:53:08,040 --> 00:53:16,800 This is this is just a little insult that somebody is putting into the arguments in order to ram it home, isn't it? 474 00:53:16,800 --> 00:53:24,420 Oh, come on, you idiot. You can't not believe this. Which means what? 475 00:53:24,420 --> 00:53:28,860 Well, it means just this, doesn't it? If I say P and you're an idiot. 476 00:53:28,860 --> 00:53:33,660 If you don't believe it. What? What am I saying? Just on the whole. 477 00:53:33,660 --> 00:53:45,270 Well, yes. I'm also saying you're an idiot if I put it that way. But it so premises for previous for can go completely and premise three to see that. 478 00:53:45,270 --> 00:53:50,020 Let's go back to the whole argument. 479 00:53:50,020 --> 00:53:56,550 Okay, and let me read it out to you, because it's sometimes much easier if you ever find you're having trouble with an argument, 480 00:53:56,550 --> 00:54:00,390 try reading it out loud, because that'll the tone you put on. 481 00:54:00,390 --> 00:54:05,430 It will give you much better idea of of where you're going with the logic. 482 00:54:05,430 --> 00:54:10,770 So let's read it out. Well, perhaps she didn't want you to tickler her tummy or she didn't realise that's what you 483 00:54:10,770 --> 00:54:15,450 were going to do if she didn't realise and you obviously went about it in the wrong way. 484 00:54:15,450 --> 00:54:17,890 In that case, you deserved to get scratched. 485 00:54:17,890 --> 00:54:22,590 Well, unless you'd really thought she was such a perceptive cat that she'd understand more fulfilment rolled over. 486 00:54:22,590 --> 00:54:26,400 But if you thought that you're an idiot, you're not an idiot. You're just twisted. 487 00:54:26,400 --> 00:54:31,970 So if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserved to get scratched. 488 00:54:31,970 --> 00:54:45,490 You see this? This actually cancels itself out from here because you're saying let's let's look at the structure of it. 489 00:54:45,490 --> 00:54:51,090 P. Unless. Q Okay. 490 00:54:51,090 --> 00:54:55,870 Q Is you really thought she was such a perceptive cat that you should understand. 491 00:54:55,870 --> 00:55:03,930 Wohlforth meant roll over. Okay. If if you thought so. 492 00:55:03,930 --> 00:55:11,090 If Q. Then you're an idiot. 493 00:55:11,090 --> 00:55:16,740 If cu, then, ah. But not off. 494 00:55:16,740 --> 00:55:20,790 And you're just twisted is just an insult added on p unless. 495 00:55:20,790 --> 00:55:28,200 Q If cu then all but not all. Can you see how that all cancels each other out. 496 00:55:28,200 --> 00:55:33,810 P Unless. Q. If Q. 497 00:55:33,810 --> 00:55:40,790 Then all but not all. So it all just becomes. 498 00:55:40,790 --> 00:55:45,100 But but again, don't worry about the figures. The letters I've put in here. 499 00:55:45,100 --> 00:55:51,940 Just do it in a row. Try reading it out and see what really counts. 500 00:55:51,940 --> 00:55:58,160 Okay, let's. So here's the argument with the irrelevancies. 501 00:55:58,160 --> 00:56:04,750 Oh, okay. One more thing. The conclusion I've just taken out the tummy again because we took out the tummy from the first premise. 502 00:56:04,750 --> 00:56:09,550 So do it in the confusion. So here's the argument with the irrelevancies removed. 503 00:56:09,550 --> 00:56:15,310 And I hope you agree it starts to look much more simple, much easier to evaluate. 504 00:56:15,310 --> 00:56:20,770 She didn't want you to tickle her or she didn't realise that's what you were going to do if she didn't realise. 505 00:56:20,770 --> 00:56:25,090 Then you went about it in the wrong way. In that case, you deserved to get scratched. 506 00:56:25,090 --> 00:56:30,130 So if the poor thing did want you to take her, you deserved to get scratched. 507 00:56:30,130 --> 00:56:42,700 But let's continue. What's the next step? So question first. It could be a conclusion. 508 00:56:42,700 --> 00:56:49,930 But don't forget, anything could be a conclusion, a conclusion is just the role that something plays in an argument. 509 00:56:49,930 --> 00:56:55,000 And in this argument, this is not playing the role of a conclusion. 510 00:56:55,000 --> 00:57:02,090 It is perhaps playing the role of a sub conclusion. But but this is the conclusion. 511 00:57:02,090 --> 00:57:10,690 You seem again, remember that the conclusion is that for which you are arguing and that's the only thing that makes this a conclusion. 512 00:57:10,690 --> 00:57:15,880 But you're absolutely right. That could play the role of of a conclusion. 513 00:57:15,880 --> 00:57:25,830 OK, what's the next step? No removing consistent terms. 514 00:57:25,830 --> 00:57:30,060 OK. And cross references. OK. Inconsistent terms. 515 00:57:30,060 --> 00:57:45,780 What do we mean by inconsistent terms? Well, if we go back to that argument that we were looking at earlier. 516 00:57:45,780 --> 00:57:51,030 OK, this one. Do you see how people wanted to have another premiss in there? 517 00:57:51,030 --> 00:57:59,850 Something about industrial nations need to give emerging nations capital the capital resources or whatever it was. 518 00:57:59,850 --> 00:58:08,760 If we look rounds to this one, if a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources, 519 00:58:08,760 --> 00:58:14,310 it will need help from industrial nations. What does this it need help mean? 520 00:58:14,310 --> 00:58:20,310 It will need what's what's the help that is implied here? 521 00:58:20,310 --> 00:58:27,960 Capital Resources. So we're using two different terms for capital resources, aren't we? 522 00:58:27,960 --> 00:58:33,480 Here we're using capital resources and here we're using just help. 523 00:58:33,480 --> 00:58:39,000 But actually, they mean the same thing, don't they? So actually, the way this argument, 524 00:58:39,000 --> 00:58:47,160 we can reveal the argument much more carefully by saying many newly emerging nations do not have capital resources. 525 00:58:47,160 --> 00:58:50,850 Capital resources are necessary for sustained growth. 526 00:58:50,850 --> 00:59:00,930 If a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources, it will need capital resources from industrial nations. 527 00:59:00,930 --> 00:59:09,500 Many newly emerging nations will need help, need capital resources from emerging nations. 528 00:59:09,500 --> 00:59:19,430 Could you use powder then? Can you use what sorry pronoun, like they said, is the. 529 00:59:19,430 --> 00:59:23,600 Well, you couldn't use them there. Well, it may. Many newly emerging nations will need. 530 00:59:23,600 --> 00:59:28,070 Oh, then you mean capital resources. I see. I'm sorry. No. 531 00:59:28,070 --> 00:59:33,260 What? Well, what you're aiming to do is to reveal the structure of the argument. 532 00:59:33,260 --> 00:59:39,920 And you do that by getting rid of as many things that are distracting you from the structure of the argument as you can. 533 00:59:39,920 --> 00:59:47,720 And one of the things that's distracting you here is the fact that's two different words or phrases are used for the same thing. 534 00:59:47,720 --> 00:59:53,660 So what you do is you change them so that they you've using the same word throughout the arguments. 535 00:59:53,660 --> 00:59:59,000 Now, you could just use many newly emerging nations do not have help. 536 00:59:59,000 --> 01:00:05,090 Help is necessary for sustained growth. I mean, this suggests we shouldn't use help, doesn't it? 537 01:00:05,090 --> 01:00:12,950 Okay, so let's use capital resources instead. Then is actually a pronoun that you on the whole, you're trying to get rid of rather than put in. 538 01:00:12,950 --> 01:00:18,190 So I wouldn't use that. But I see why you wanted to. 539 01:00:18,190 --> 01:00:21,920 OK. Do you see what I mean about removing inconsistent terms? 540 01:00:21,920 --> 01:00:40,080 Have I convinced you you were right about what the. 541 01:00:40,080 --> 01:00:44,910 So you need to book. So that should be capital resources. Yes. 542 01:00:44,910 --> 01:00:50,370 Yes. You were right about that. But I hope I was right that that wasn't a suppressed premiss. 543 01:00:50,370 --> 01:00:57,150 It's a matter of an inconsistent term needing to be removed or needing to be made consistent. 544 01:00:57,150 --> 01:01:10,000 So let's try it with this. The argument we're looking at now, I've now forgotten which side we were on. 545 01:01:10,000 --> 01:01:13,460 You know, I was just explaining what inconsistent terms are. OK? 546 01:01:13,460 --> 01:01:17,690 That's what an inconsistent term is. What about a cross reference? 547 01:01:17,690 --> 01:01:26,960 If we've got Marianne always wears jeans on Friday, she is wearing jeans. 548 01:01:26,960 --> 01:01:36,680 Forgotten what they own. What do we got there that we could? It's like an inconsistent term. 549 01:01:36,680 --> 01:01:43,070 This is not the jeans, but she because she is referring to Marianne. 550 01:01:43,070 --> 01:01:51,260 So either make both she that would be fine, but but it might fall down elsewhere in the argument or make both Marianne. 551 01:01:51,260 --> 01:01:55,490 So remove the she and make it explicit that you mean Marianne. 552 01:01:55,490 --> 01:02:02,030 So let's try that in this premiss. Now I'm just got a hint here. 553 01:02:02,030 --> 01:02:07,330 We're going to leave the she in here because throughout the argument, it's she isn't it? 554 01:02:07,330 --> 01:02:16,100 We're never introduced to the cat's name. We don't know what her name is and nor is she referred to as the cat at any point or anything like that. 555 01:02:16,100 --> 01:02:18,560 So in fact, this isn't an inconsistent term. 556 01:02:18,560 --> 01:02:25,060 It's consistent throughout, even though it's exactly the sort of thing that you would usually be removing. 557 01:02:25,060 --> 01:02:31,710 OK. So she didn't want you to tickler or she didn't realise that's what you were going to do. 558 01:02:31,710 --> 01:02:35,210 Anyone can see anything that once you want to put put up your hand. 559 01:02:35,210 --> 01:02:42,800 If you see something that you'd like to remove, she didn't want you to take her or she didn't realise you were going to tickle her. 560 01:02:42,800 --> 01:02:46,280 That was what you were going to do. Stands in for. 561 01:02:46,280 --> 01:02:54,560 You were going to tickle her, doesn't it? We're not changing the meaning, but by making those two terms consistent. 562 01:02:54,560 --> 01:03:01,880 We're just making explicit something that in the original premise is left implicit inheritors. 563 01:03:01,880 --> 01:03:06,920 She didn't want you to tickler or she didn't realise that you were going to tickle her. 564 01:03:06,920 --> 01:03:12,750 I'd left that out. But that doesn't matter. OK. You won't have any problems with that? 565 01:03:12,750 --> 01:03:21,680 No. OK, let's move on. What about premiss, too? If she didn't realise, then you went about it in the wrong way. 566 01:03:21,680 --> 01:03:26,650 Very nearly. Right. The first bit was certainly right. If she didn't realise you were going to tickle her, you. 567 01:03:26,650 --> 01:03:29,400 Did you see you need to add this in because otherwise, 568 01:03:29,400 --> 01:03:36,620 if you didn't if she didn't realise isn't actually a sentence, is it, until you add you were going to tickle her. 569 01:03:36,620 --> 01:03:40,820 So you complete that sentence by adding that in. What about the second half? 570 01:03:40,820 --> 01:03:47,000 Anyone have any ideas here? Then you were going to tickle her in the wrong way. 571 01:03:47,000 --> 01:03:54,230 Yes, something like that. Keep it as similar as possible, because all you're doing is trying to get rid of the complications. 572 01:03:54,230 --> 01:03:59,930 You're trying to make it as simple as possible so as to reveal the structure of the arguments. 573 01:03:59,930 --> 01:04:06,560 And you do that by getting rid of all the things that that are just confusing you. 574 01:04:06,560 --> 01:04:13,660 So if she didn't realise you were going to tickle her, then you were going to tickle her in the wrong way. 575 01:04:13,660 --> 01:04:19,540 Okay. Anyone any questions about that? Good premise. 576 01:04:19,540 --> 01:04:28,150 Three. Good. Well done. In that case, refers back to the previous premise, doesn't it? 577 01:04:28,150 --> 01:04:32,680 And it says if you were going to tickler in the wrong way, you deserve to get scratched. 578 01:04:32,680 --> 01:04:37,960 There's two quite separate sentences, aren't there? You are going to tickle her in the wrong way. 579 01:04:37,960 --> 01:04:42,970 And she didn't realise you were going to tickle her. Now, those are different sentences. 580 01:04:42,970 --> 01:04:50,040 You mustn't complete them because actually they matter to the arguments as very much so. 581 01:04:50,040 --> 01:04:54,340 OK. Any other questions about premies? Three. No. 582 01:04:54,340 --> 01:04:58,780 Let's move on. What about the conclusion? It's an easy one, isn't it? 583 01:04:58,780 --> 01:05:03,150 Okay. If she did want you to tell her you deserved to get scratched. 584 01:05:03,150 --> 01:05:09,570 Okay. So we take out the poor thing and put in she. Okay. 585 01:05:09,570 --> 01:05:16,480 Question. Yes. Does the conclusion have to stand as a sentence that makes sense? 586 01:05:16,480 --> 01:05:20,720 Me from the very beginning. Well, I want you to take her. 587 01:05:20,720 --> 01:05:27,430 You deserve to get scratched. Doesn't make any sense. Yes, it does. 588 01:05:27,430 --> 01:05:31,370 What makes what does that tell you? She wanted you to take. You deserve it. 589 01:05:31,370 --> 01:05:36,280 Well, if the poor cat wanted you to tickle her. Oh, I see. 590 01:05:36,280 --> 01:05:42,490 You think. OK. If she wanted you to tickle her, you deserve to get scratched. 591 01:05:42,490 --> 01:05:47,510 Isn't isn't. Isn't it. Okay. I see where you're going. 592 01:05:47,510 --> 01:05:50,840 It is a sentence but your wanting. Okay. 593 01:05:50,840 --> 01:05:54,890 Shall I tell you what you're doing. And I completely sympathise with what you're doing. 594 01:05:54,890 --> 01:06:03,500 And what's more, you are not the only person in this room who's doing it. You're probably the only person who's got the courage to question me on it. 595 01:06:03,500 --> 01:06:08,500 What you're doing is you're trying to put the logic in here, okay? 596 01:06:08,500 --> 01:06:16,850 You're you're trying to to make this you're trying to make it all follow so that it makes sense as an argument. 597 01:06:16,850 --> 01:06:22,550 And what you should be doing is just trying to identify what is said here. 598 01:06:22,550 --> 01:06:29,240 What do you want to put in is this. I think so. If she did want you to tickle her. 599 01:06:29,240 --> 01:06:34,850 But you went about it in the wrong way or something like that, then you deserve to get scratches. 600 01:06:34,850 --> 01:06:43,490 Is that right? The conclusion is that there's a missing link to the premises for me. 601 01:06:43,490 --> 01:06:48,360 But. But the conclusion. Yeah, you're wrong. 602 01:06:48,360 --> 01:06:52,190 Okay. That's all I'll say right now. You're wrong. 603 01:06:52,190 --> 01:06:59,000 And what you should do is have a look at the argument so that we can even if you're still thinking that if you still don't see what I'm saying, 604 01:06:59,000 --> 01:07:05,060 come and see me next week and I'll I'll explain again. This will convince you. 605 01:07:05,060 --> 01:07:10,160 I'm going to reveal the structure of this argument by formalising it. 606 01:07:10,160 --> 01:07:16,760 And if that doesn't convince you, nothing will. Okay. 607 01:07:16,760 --> 01:07:28,120 We're going to put it into P's and Q's and it'll be a revelation to you how putting it into P's and Q's will make it make much more sense. 608 01:07:28,120 --> 01:07:37,460 OK. What we've got to do is identify each of the constituent sentences of the argument and assign it a sentence letter. 609 01:07:37,460 --> 01:07:44,270 Now, have I gone? No account on this. OK, let's look at Premiss one. 610 01:07:44,270 --> 01:07:51,430 We've got to identify the constituent sentences of that premiss and assign it a letter. 611 01:07:51,430 --> 01:07:55,310 So just looking at Premiss one, what are the constituent sentences? 612 01:07:55,310 --> 01:08:07,870 What's the first one? She didn't want you to tickle her. 613 01:08:07,870 --> 01:08:21,700 OK. And the other one, she didn't realise you were only going. 614 01:08:21,700 --> 01:08:26,850 To tickle her. Okay, well, here are two sentences. 615 01:08:26,850 --> 01:08:38,640 Let's provide them with sentence letters. I'd ask you which ones you wanted, but I want you to choose certain ones so you can choose either P or Q. 616 01:08:38,640 --> 01:08:42,660 And I'd rather not P for this one. 617 01:08:42,660 --> 01:08:48,060 Good. Okay. What? What about the next one? Q Well done. 618 01:08:48,060 --> 01:08:58,110 Good choices I have to say. Okay. So whenever we use the sentence letter P, that that means that sentence is just standing in for that sentence. 619 01:08:58,110 --> 01:09:02,790 Okay. And whenever you use the sentence that a Q that just stands in for that sentence. 620 01:09:02,790 --> 01:09:07,470 Okay. It's dead simple. Nothing magical about these things at all. 621 01:09:07,470 --> 01:09:15,500 And the reason we use capital letters from this side. This part of the alphabet that's just conventional. 622 01:09:15,500 --> 01:09:21,630 Well, if we use capital letters like F, G, etc., we tend to use them for other parts of the language. 623 01:09:21,630 --> 01:09:26,370 And if we use lowercase letters like A, B, C, that's for another part of language. 624 01:09:26,370 --> 01:09:31,590 So there is a conventions about which part of language used for which sentence letters. 625 01:09:31,590 --> 01:09:39,990 So that's why I want you to use letters from here. Okay, so Premiss one has two constituent sentences. 626 01:09:39,990 --> 01:09:43,800 She didn't want you to tickle her and she didn't realise you were only going to take her. 627 01:09:43,800 --> 01:09:49,350 And we've labelled them P and Q Okay. Previous to what the constituent sentences in this letter. 628 01:09:49,350 --> 01:09:55,740 This one was the first one. She didn't realise you were only going to Tickler. 629 01:09:55,740 --> 01:10:03,310 Well, we've got that already, haven't we? So we don't need to put that down. What about the other one? 630 01:10:03,310 --> 01:10:15,670 You were going to take her in the wrong way, okay? You were going to tickle her in the wrong way, okay. 631 01:10:15,670 --> 01:10:19,300 It needs a sentence letter. What should we have? Oh, good. 632 01:10:19,300 --> 01:10:22,960 Yes. Well done. You've got the idea here. 633 01:10:22,960 --> 01:10:27,370 So you can formalise things steady easily. Okay. 634 01:10:27,370 --> 01:10:34,010 That's premise too, isn't it. Good. Premise three. 635 01:10:34,010 --> 01:10:39,910 Okay. You are going to take her in the wrong way. Yes, that's right. 636 01:10:39,910 --> 01:10:48,970 That's Oregon. You deserve to get stretched. Okay. You deserve to get scratched. 637 01:10:48,970 --> 01:10:52,960 What should we call that? Yes. Good. 638 01:10:52,960 --> 01:11:00,050 Okay. And conclusion. So if she did want you to take all her. 639 01:11:00,050 --> 01:11:07,370 Now, that's interesting because up here, we've got she didn't want you to take her now do it. 640 01:11:07,370 --> 01:11:13,670 I'm going to put her outside the room. No, don't you. 641 01:11:13,670 --> 01:11:18,320 This is. It's very good that you question things, because that's important. 642 01:11:18,320 --> 01:11:24,660 We won't need another sentence lesser because what can we use instead? Not pee, can't we? 643 01:11:24,660 --> 01:11:33,960 You don't you certainly don't need pee and not pee because you've got that just in having pee and the wet and the logical word not. 644 01:11:33,960 --> 01:11:38,360 Okay. So if she did want you to take her, you deserved to get scratched. 645 01:11:38,360 --> 01:11:42,410 Do we need anything else that says already? 646 01:11:42,410 --> 01:11:52,010 Exactly. So we're here. We've got all the sentences that that make up the argument tumbly, all the sentences that that constitute the argument. 647 01:11:52,010 --> 01:11:59,690 Now, I need somebody to hold this, please. Somebody come up and hold this for me. 648 01:11:59,690 --> 01:12:05,120 OK, there we are. There we have an interpretation. That's what that's called an interpretation. 649 01:12:05,120 --> 01:12:09,720 Now, Premiss one. What's the form of that? 650 01:12:09,720 --> 01:12:14,480 There's a logical word in that that's holding together two sentences. 651 01:12:14,480 --> 01:12:21,410 What are the sentences and what are the logical words, P or Q? 652 01:12:21,410 --> 01:12:36,640 Good. That's premiss one, isn't it. What's premiss to. So if there's a coup, she didn't realise, okay, 653 01:12:36,640 --> 01:12:47,330 if CU then not therefore your confusing implication and entailment, whoever that was, if coup then s was it. 654 01:12:47,330 --> 01:12:56,200 Ah OK. Then the third premiss, if you were going to tickler in the wrong way, you deserve to get scratched. 655 01:12:56,200 --> 01:13:13,000 If all then s. And the conclusion is, if not, she she didn't want you. 656 01:13:13,000 --> 01:13:18,910 If not P, then let W not. 657 01:13:18,910 --> 01:13:23,860 Where's the not. That's not wrong. 658 01:13:23,860 --> 01:13:32,350 You'll be outside here in a minute. There was no not no. 659 01:13:32,350 --> 01:13:38,470 I'm putting it. I got it. I'm putting the not in front of the P because we've got P was. 660 01:13:38,470 --> 01:13:44,340 She didn't want you to tickler. And the note here is if she did want you to take her. 661 01:13:44,340 --> 01:13:49,600 OK. But this says you deserve to get scratched, doesn't it. 662 01:13:49,600 --> 01:13:57,010 And this says you deserve to get scratched. There's no not snuck in here. 663 01:13:57,010 --> 01:14:05,240 I'm saying not pee, but I'm not saying not s. Am I making you make something or do you have to put it mildly? 664 01:14:05,240 --> 01:14:10,320 No, you don't. No, because. 665 01:14:10,320 --> 01:14:21,010 Well, what do you put. Actually, if you use if you you know, this is if not P then s woops. 666 01:14:21,010 --> 01:14:24,590 No, that's. OK. 667 01:14:24,590 --> 01:14:31,660 It's only the pea that's been negated. Not the S, not the S. 668 01:14:31,660 --> 01:14:42,630 OK. You get me confused now. 669 01:14:42,630 --> 01:14:48,910 Hold on. We've got four minutes to go. Let let's finish. OK, that's fine, because, you know, we might need this. 670 01:14:48,910 --> 01:14:57,820 Stay there. OK, so this p q r s and his premise one. 671 01:14:57,820 --> 01:15:02,960 Oh I was going to make you do it like this but. So. Right. You've done it. 672 01:15:02,960 --> 01:15:13,080 So. Here, so there's the whole argument, which is exactly what you've had there, what you've got there. 673 01:15:13,080 --> 01:15:22,250 Whoops. I should have put a not there, shouldn't I? 674 01:15:22,250 --> 01:15:27,630 And I haven't. But that's my mistake. Okay. There's only a not there. 675 01:15:27,630 --> 01:15:31,390 She didn't want you to tickle her or she didn't realise you were going to Tickler. 676 01:15:31,390 --> 01:15:34,900 Okay. That's a straightforward either or isn't it either. 677 01:15:34,900 --> 01:15:37,180 This is the case. Or that's the case. 678 01:15:37,180 --> 01:15:42,670 Then this says, if she didn't realise that you were going to Tickler, then you were going to Tickler in the wrong way. 679 01:15:42,670 --> 01:15:47,110 Now, obviously, if you like, something's happened. She's scratched you. 680 01:15:47,110 --> 01:15:54,260 Hasn't she? And somebody said if she didn't realise you were going to tickle her, then obviously you went about it in the wrong way. 681 01:15:54,260 --> 01:16:01,000 So going about it gently, puss, puss, puss, you shoved your hand into a tummy and scratched. 682 01:16:01,000 --> 01:16:09,280 So if she didn't realise you were going to Tickler, then she and the implication there is that if she had realised, you wouldn't have got scratched. 683 01:16:09,280 --> 01:16:12,980 Is that right? That's the implication there. 684 01:16:12,980 --> 01:16:18,950 If she had realised, you wouldn't have got scratched. OK. 685 01:16:18,950 --> 01:16:23,160 No, no, we're not talking about one thing here at all. No. 686 01:16:23,160 --> 01:16:27,370 But the premises are separate. The premises are completely separate. 687 01:16:27,370 --> 01:16:31,730 We're looking at the meaning of each one separately. OK. 688 01:16:31,730 --> 01:16:38,450 So this one, the implication is if she had realised that, then you wouldn't have got scratched. 689 01:16:38,450 --> 01:16:45,710 If you're going to tickler in the wrong way, you you deserve to get scratched. Showcases the question of desserts coming in here. 690 01:16:45,710 --> 01:16:55,940 And so the conclusion is, if she did want you to tickle her and you went about it in the wrong way, then you deserve to get scratched. 691 01:16:55,940 --> 01:17:02,980 So the poor thing was longing for you to take her. And what she did when you did Tickler was scratch you. 692 01:17:02,980 --> 01:17:08,830 Well, why did that happen? Because you went about it in the wrong way. 693 01:17:08,830 --> 01:17:17,510 Have we got to have it stand in its own right and makes sense without the premises? 694 01:17:17,510 --> 01:17:21,570 Is that right? I'm going to shut you up now. OK, let's. 695 01:17:21,570 --> 01:17:25,430 I do. I don't want to leave on a note of confusion. 696 01:17:25,430 --> 01:17:33,680 The important thing is that what we've done today is we've taken an argument that you looked at and when you looked at it, you want. 697 01:17:33,680 --> 01:17:40,220 Didn't you? OK, well, I said we're going to set it out longit bookstall of all we're going to do is identify the argument. 698 01:17:40,220 --> 01:17:44,000 We're going to analyse the argument, reveal its structure. 699 01:17:44,000 --> 01:17:48,500 So what we've done is we've taken the argument, we identified the conclusion of the argument. 700 01:17:48,500 --> 01:17:53,840 We all did that fairly easily. We identified each premise. We all did that fairly easily. 701 01:17:53,840 --> 01:17:59,050 Yes. OK. We looked for suppressed premises, but I told you there weren't any. 702 01:17:59,050 --> 01:18:05,150 So. So we didn't bother with that one. Then we went through each premise and we removed inconsistent terms, 703 01:18:05,150 --> 01:18:13,520 cross references and irrelevancies and revealed the arguments, which might be a very bad argument for all we know. 704 01:18:13,520 --> 01:18:17,000 But but we revealed the argument that was there. 705 01:18:17,000 --> 01:18:25,640 What we didn't do is try and impose the argument we would have made because it would have been a better one. 706 01:18:25,640 --> 01:18:29,480 On the argument that we were trying to analyse. Are you with me? 707 01:18:29,480 --> 01:18:33,870 So all we've done is revealed the arguments here. We've revealed the structure. 708 01:18:33,870 --> 01:18:37,910 We've even got it down to piece cues, R's and S's. 709 01:18:37,910 --> 01:18:44,870 Now, what you should do for for next week is take one of the arguments that you found this week and try and do that. 710 01:18:44,870 --> 01:18:52,850 And an awful lot of that's going to be removing irrelevancies, cross references and things like that and adding suppressed premises. 711 01:18:52,850 --> 01:18:57,740 But it'll give you practise in doing it. And don't forget, this is the important thing. 712 01:18:57,740 --> 01:19:03,050 You can apply this methodology either to somebody else's arguments, which is what we've been doing here. 713 01:19:03,050 --> 01:19:12,290 And what you will do if you look at arguments from the newspaper or you can apply it to your own arguments and you 714 01:19:12,290 --> 01:19:23,440 think of something for which you often argue climate change or something like that or I don't know what's up. 715 01:19:23,440 --> 01:19:28,760 Okay. That's a good one. That'll do. Anyway, find something for which you like to argue in the pub, 716 01:19:28,760 --> 01:19:38,060 write down your conclusion and write down your premises and try and make the argument, the argument you actually give. 717 01:19:38,060 --> 01:19:44,570 So then when we start evaluating arguments, we can look at it. But you will have identified your own arguments and set it out. 718 01:19:44,570 --> 01:19:46,340 Logic book style, 719 01:19:46,340 --> 01:19:55,070 because people often don't do that with their own arguments and therefore don't see that they're missing out a huge premiss or that this is happening, 720 01:19:55,070 --> 01:19:59,030 all that's happening or whatever. Okay. Save your home for this week. 721 01:19:59,030 --> 01:20:02,930 Either take the arguments you found last week and set them out logic bookstall or 722 01:20:02,930 --> 01:20:08,900 choose a client claim you'd like to make and see if you can set it out as an argument. 723 01:20:08,900 --> 01:20:21,185 Logic bookstall. Okay, cool. I'm exhausted.