牛津逻辑推理入门 - 3.设定论证逻辑的课本形式.

视频全文转录（中英双语）

以下为完整中英双语转录，已加标点。英文在前，中文在后，逐段对照。

由 Groq Whisper 转录 → M3 B 方案整文标点 + 分段 → M3 段号保留翻译 → 逐段对照。

[段 1]

Right, now we’re on to 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 logic book style. And the point of doing this is it enables you to get rid of all sorts of things that are irrelevant to the argument and you set out the argument so the structure of the argument is very clear. That way it’s much easier to evaluate. Okay, let’s get started. Okay, just a brief recap as usual on last week. If you remember, we looked at the fact that there are two basic types of arguments, deductive and inductive. And we saw that deductive arguments are such that, come on, tell me. Don’t look at your handouts. Tell me what a deductive argument is. How do you recognize it? The premise is true. The premise is guaranteed. Oh, oh, oh, oh. Aren’t you good? Haven’t you done well? You’re absolutely right.

[译文 1]

好，现在我们进入第三周了，本周我们要学习如何识别和分析论证，以及如何用逻辑书风格把它们列出来。这样做的目的是，它能让你剔除掉所有与论证无关的东西，然后把论证呈现出来，让论证的结构一目了然。这样一来，评估起来就容易多了。好，我们开始吧。好的，照例先简要回顾一下上周的内容。如果你还记得的话，我们看过这样一个事实：论证有两种基本类型，演绎和归纳。我们看到演绎论证是这样的，来，告诉我。别看你的讲义。告诉我什么是演绎论证。你怎么认出它？前提是真的。前提是确定的。哦，哦，哦，哦。你们真棒。答得真好。你完全正确。

[段 2]

That’s right. the truth of the premise makes the truth of the conclusion certain or those of you who use the word guarantee the truth of the premise guarantees the truth of the conclusion well done, that’s absolutely right then inductive arguments are such that good, ok, I can hear that you’ve got it as well ok, I’ve put it slightly differently this week because if you remember last week we got into trouble with the way I phrase this as more or less, because we don’t want promises…less because we don’t want promises making less probable the conclusion do we so I’ve said the truth of the premise makes the truth of the conclusion more likely 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 therefore it’s likely it’ll rise tomorrow and it’s really pretty likely isn’t it? It’s almost certain. Or slightly more likely. So the fact that every time you’ve seen me I’ve been wearing earrings makes it slightly more likely that the next time you see me I’ll be wearing earrings. So whereas deduction is an either-or thing, induction is a matter of degree. An argument is more or less strong. Good.

[译文 2]

没错。前提为真使得结论为真成为必然，或者说，对于你们当中使用"保证"这个词的人来说，前提的真实性保证了结论的真实性——很好，完全正确。那么归纳论证是这样的——好，好，我听到你们也明白了——好，我本周换了一种稍微不同的说法，因为如果你记得的话，上周我因为用了"或多或少"这种表述方式而惹了点麻烦，因为我们不想作出承诺……“较少"是因为我们不想承诺让结论变得更可能，对吧？所以我说的就是，前提的真实性使结论的真实性更有可能。当然，正如你所知，要么是可能性大得多，就像太阳在宇宙的全部历史中每天都已经升起过，因此它明天很可能会升起，这个真的相当可能，不是吗？几乎确定了。要么只是稍微更可能一些。所以每次你见到我时我都戴着耳环这一事实，使得你下次见到我时我戴着耳环的可能性只是稍微高一些。所以，演绎论证是一种非此即彼的事情，而归纳论证则是一个程度的问题。一个论证或多或少是有力的。很好。

[段 3]

We then looked at some examples of arguments that are deductively valid in virtue of their form, and do you remember I was using the P’s and Q’s and so on to talk about things like modus ponens and modus tollens and so on, so we’ve got if P then Q, P therefore Q, that’s valid in virtue of its form, because it doesn’t matter what you’re talking about, it doesn’t matter what sentences you put in for P or Q, if the structure of the argument is if P then Q, P therefore Q, it will be valid. Okay? So then we looked at some arguments that are deductively valid.then we looked at some arguments that are deductively valid in virtue of their content. Can you remember any of those? This is a bit harder because they were only examples that we gave. Good? Not quite. Lying is wrong, therefore we shouldn’t lie, exactly. 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? 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, if you believe lying is wrong, then you’ll also believe that you shouldn’t lie. Doesn’t mean you won’t lie, but it does mean that if you do, you’ll feel guilty or whatever.

[译文 3]

然后我们看了一些由于形式而演绎有效的论证的例子，你记得吗？我用 P 和 Q 等等来谈论像 modus ponens（肯定前件式）和 modus tollens（否定后件式）之类的东西。所以我们得到的是：如果 P 那么 Q，P，所以 Q——这由于其形式而有效，因为不论你在谈论什么，不论你用什么样的句子去替换 P 或 Q，只要论证的结构是"如果 P 那么 Q，P 所以 Q”，它就是有效的。明白了吗？然后我们看了一些由于内容而演绎有效的论证。你能记起其中任何一个吗？这有点难，因为那些只是我们举过的例子。想到了吗？还不太对。说谎是错的，因此我们不应该说谎——完全正确。你看出来了吗？如果那是一个演绎有效的论证，那是由于"错"这个词的含义，对吧？说谎是错的，因此我们不应该说谎。所以这里的想法是，如果你正确理解了"错"这个词，你就会看到，如果认为说谎是错的，如果你相信说谎是错的，那么你也应该相信你不应该说谎。这并不意味着你不会说谎，但它的确意味着如果你说了，你会感到内疚或者诸如此类。

[段 4]

But that’s in virtue of the meaning of the word wrong. Can you remember any other arguments that were valid in virtue of the content, the meaning of particular words? Right, I can’t remember the particular example I used there. I don’t think that would have been one, actually. 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 virtue ofthat I used of one of the ones that’s valid in virtue of form. Okay. No, that came later. Temporal, yes, okay, that was one. Can you remember how that went? Okay. That’s right. It’s raining today, therefore tomorrow it will have rained today. Okay, and that’s because of the word tomorrow and our understanding of before and after and yesterday and today and so on. Okay, good. Then we moved on to inductive arguments and we looked at several different examples of an inductive argument. Can you remember any of those? You mentioned one a minute ago. Yes, what was it about Einstein? It was an argument from authority. Good, okay. So this bans an authority on this, therefore he said this, therefore he’s an authority on this. That’s a bad way of looking at it, But you can see that assumes the principle of what? What’s behind every inductive argument? Logic. Yes.

[译文 4]

但那是因为"错"这个词的含义。你还能记起其他由于内容、由于特定词的含义而有效的论证吗？好，我记不起我在这里用的具体例子了。我不认为那个会是一个例子，实际上。我可能记错了，但我有种感觉那是我用过的、由于形式而有效的一个例子的例子。好。不，那个是后面才讲的。时间性的，对，没错，那是其中一个。你能记起它是怎么展开的吗？好的。完全正确。今天在下雨，所以明天今天下过雨了。好的，那是因为"明天"这个词以及我们对之前与之后、昨天与今天等等的理解。好的，很好。然后我们继续看了归纳论证，考察了归纳论证的几个不同例子。你能记起其中任何一个吗？你刚才提到了一个。是的，是关于爱因斯坦的什么？那是一个来自权威的论证。好。所以这是禁止某个权威谈论这个，因此他说了这个，因此他是这方面的权威。那是一种不好的看问题的方式，但你可以看到它假定了一个什么原理？每个归纳论证背后是什么？逻辑。是的。

[段 5]

Continuity. Continuity, yes. Can anyone put it in the way I put it last week? There’s a principle that Hume is most famous for, David Hume. He said the principle of the? Uniformity of nature. That’s right. so what’s happened in the past will happen in the future if ithappened in the past will happen in the future. If it was like that in the past, it’s going to be like that in the future, and so on. That’s the principle of the uniformity of nature, which underlies every inductive argument, and which can’t itself be argued for, because arguing for it takes us in a circle. Why is the future like the past? Because it always has been. Well, again, we’re relying on induction, aren’t we? Okay, so we looked at some examples. This week, we’re going to be learning how to identify and analyse arguments and how to set them out logic book style. So if you’ve got some arguments from this week that you had trouble analysing or you had trouble recognising, you’ll be able to use the arguments that you found this week to practice what we’re going to learn today. Okay, so let’s start by seeing an argument set out logic book style. 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.

[译文 5]

连续性。连续性，对。能否有人用我上周的说法来表述一下？有一个休谟最为人所知——大卫·休谟——他说的那个原理是什么？自然齐一律。没错。所以过去发生的事情将来还会发生。如果过去是这样，那么将来也会是这样，以此类推。这就是自然齐一律的原理，它支撑着每一个归纳论证，而它本身是无法被论证的，因为对它进行论证会让我们陷入循环。为什么未来会像过去？因为过去一直如此。好吧，我们又依赖于归纳了，不是吗？好的，所以我们就看了一些例子。本周，我们将要学习如何识别和分析论证，以及如何用逻辑书风格把它们列出来。所以如果你本周有一些分析或识别起来有困难的论证，你就能够用你本周找到的论证来练习我们今天要学的内容。好的，那么我们先来看一个用逻辑书风格列出的论证。你们已经厌倦这个论证了，对吧？我也已经厌倦这个论证了。但它又出现了，以逻辑书风格列出来。

[段 6]

Okay, you don’t have to write out premise one in full, you can just put P1, or you don’t even have to put that, you can just assume that the premises come first and then the conclusion. But that’s an argument set out logic book style. And you might ask, well, what’s the point of setting out arguments logic book style? Has anyone got any idea? Why do we bother setting out arguments logic book style. To clarify. Yes, absolutely. It makes itsYes, absolutely. It makes it much stronger. From if you’re trying to argue your point. It shouldn’t make it stronger, because what you’re doing in setting out an argument logic book style is just identifying the argument. Therefore, you shouldn’t be able to make it either stronger or weaker. All you’re doing is identifying what the argument is. So we’re not evaluating it at the moment. We’re just analysing it, just setting it out logic book style. A non-logic book style might include assumptions. Good. Whereas a logic book style would have to include assumptions. Absolutely, that’s right. What we do in setting out an argument logic book style is we actually identify all the premises. So if there’s a suppressed premise or an assumption, as Paul says, we try and make it explicit, if we can. Do you do it in a set format, so you don’t have to rearrange the sentences to work out what the premises and what the conclusions are?

[译文 6]

好的，你不需要把前提一完整地写出来，你可以只写 P1，甚至你连这个都不用写，你可以默认前提先出现，然后是结论。但那就是一个用逻辑书风格列出的论证了。你可能会问，好，用逻辑书风格列出论证有什么意义呢？有人有什么想法吗？我们为什么要费心用逻辑书风格列出论证呢？是为了阐明。是的，完全正确。它会让它强有力得多。如果你是要论证你的观点的话。它不应该让它变得更强，因为你在用逻辑书风格列出一个论证时所做的仅仅是识别那个论证。因此，你不应该能让它变得更强或更弱。你所做的只是识别论证是什么。所以我们此刻并不是在评估它。我们只是在分析它，只是以逻辑书风格把它列出来。非逻辑书风格可能会包含假设。很好。而逻辑书风格则必须包含假设。完全正确。在以逻辑书风格列出一个论证时，我们实际上要识别出所有的前提。所以如果有一个被压制的前提或一个假设，正如 Paul 所说，我们要尝试把它明确化，如果可以的话。你用一种固定的格式来写，这样你就不必重新排列句子来弄清什么是前提、什么是结论了，对吗？

[段 7]

Absolutely. It’s a set format. So if you remember what was on there, you’ve got premise, premise, conclusion. So we know exactly what is being argued for, 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, which are the premises. Any other ideas on this? One, two, and then we’ll move on. It’s the way of… When you were teaching us about the different kinds ofThat’s right, because if you remember, I was asking you to identify the premises and the conclusion. Of course, you have to be able to do that to set out an argument logic book style, but once you’ve done it, once you’ve set it out logic book style, then it’s obvious. Yep, one, two. The gentleman behind you was first. Yep. It can do, yes. Yes, that might also come later. Again, we’ll have a look at that later on. One more. It’s easier to spot a mistake in the argument. Up to a point, as we’ll see, Lord Copper. Okay, I’ve put down, there’s the one we mentioned. It enables us to add suppressed premises. It enables us to eliminate cross-references, irrelevancies, and inconsistent terms. Okay, and that makes it much easier to identify the argument. We’ll go through all this, so if you don’t quite understand what I mean here, don’t worry about it.

[译文 7]

当然。这是一个固定的格式。所以如果你还记得上面的内容，那就是前提、前提、结论。所以我们清楚地知道在被论证的是什么，因为那就是结论，不是吗？而且我们清楚地知道作为相信该结论的理由而被提出的是什么，也就是前提。还有其他想法吗？一位、两位，然后我们就继续。这就是……当你教我们关于不同种类的……对，因为如果你记得的话，我让你们去识别前提和结论。当然，你必须能够做到这一点，才能以逻辑书的方式列出一个论证，但一旦你这样做了，一旦你以逻辑书的方式列出它，那它就一目了然了。好，一位、两位。你后面那位先生先请。好。是的，可以的。是的，那也可能稍后出现。再说一遍，我们稍后会看一下。再来一位。这样更容易发现论证中的错误。在一定程度上，正如我们将看到的，Copper 勋爵。好，我写下来了，有我们提到过的那一条。它使我们能够补充被省略的前提。它使我们能够消除交叉引用、无关内容和不一致的术语。好，这会让识别论证容易得多。我们会过一遍所有的内容，所以如果你们不太明白我的意思，不用担心。

[段 8]

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. Okay. Right. On the surface of it, it’s either…Right, on the surface of it, it’s easy to set out arguments logic book style. Let’s try this one. You’re familiar with this. You’ve seen this argument before. First of all, tell me what’s the conclusion of this argument. Tell me which is the conclusion. Edinburgh is north of Oxford. Good. Edinburgh is north of Oxford. So premise one? Manchester is north of Oxford. Good. And I’m glad you left out the word since because that’s a logical word, isn’t it? That’s not actually part of the sentence that is the premise. So you were absolutely right to leave that out. Okay, premise one then. So you’re writing down premise one. Manchester is north of Oxford. Premise two? Edinburgh is north of Manchester. Edinburgh is north of Manchester. Good. And the conclusion, Edinburgh is north of Oxford. And you left out since and and. Well done. Those two are the logical words. They’re the words on which the validity of the argument hangs, as we’ll see later. but we leave them out of the identification of the premise and the conclusion. Okay, let’s try this one. What’s the conclusion? Which is float, yeah. Okay, the conclusion is which is float.

[译文 8]

我们马上就会讲到。它使得评估论证要容易得多、容易得多，我希望你们今天能看到这一点。好。嗯。表面上，它要么……嗯，表面上，以逻辑书的方式列出论证是很容易的。我们来试试这一条。你熟悉这个。你以前见过这个论证。首先，告诉我这个论证的结论是什么。告诉我哪一个是结论。爱丁堡在牛津以北。好。爱丁堡在牛津以北。那前提一呢？曼彻斯特在牛津以北。好。我很高兴你把"since"这个词去掉了，因为那是一个逻辑词，不是吗？它实际上并不是作为前提的句子的一部分。所以你把它去掉是完全正确的。好，那前提一。所以你正在写下前提一。曼彻斯特在牛津以北。前提二呢？爱丁堡在曼彻斯特以北。爱丁堡在曼彻斯特以北。好。还有结论，爱丁堡在牛津以北。你把"since"和"and"都去掉了。做得很好。这两个是逻辑词。它们是这个论证有效性所依赖的词，我们稍后会看到。但我们把它们从前提和结论的识别中去掉。好，我们来试试这一条。结论是什么？是"float"，对。好，结论就是"which is float"。

[段 9]

Premise one? Which is made of wood. Wood floats, good. Again, you left out the logical answer and that’s right. Can I just give you a warning of this? And is a logical word, but and here is conditional.word, but and here is connecting which two parts of language, I mean two of the same parts of language, what’s it connecting here? Two premises, okay, but what are premises there? Sentences, so and here is a sentence connector, okay, and we can connect any sentences we want, here it is used again connecting these two sentences. But what about this one? Oedipus is a black and white cat. Okay, is and working as a sentence connective there? Oedipus is a black and white cat. What’s it connecting there? Two adjectives or two predicates, as we would say in logic. So you’ve got to be a bit careful 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? So just watch out for that. Keep an eye open for that. Right, good. Well, we’ve set those two out logic book styles. Okay, now try this one. Duh. Okay, now I’m not serious about your trying that one right at the minute, but we are going to do that one before the end of today.

[译文 9]

前提一呢？是用木头做的。木头会浮，好。再次，你把逻辑连接词去掉了，这是对的。我能给你们提一个警告吗？“and"是一个逻辑词，但这里的"and"是条件性的……逻辑词，但这里的"and"是在连接语言的两个部分，我是说，语言的同一类两个部分，它在这里连接的是什么？两个前提，好，但前提在那里是什么？句子，所以这里的"and"是一个句子连接词，好，我们可以连接任何我们想要的句子，它在这里又被使用来连接这两个句子。但这一个呢？Oedipus 是一只黑白相间的猫。好，“is"和"and"在这里是作为句子连接词在起作用吗？Oedipus 是一只黑白相间的猫。它在那里连接的是什么？两个形容词，或者用逻辑学的术语说，两个谓词。所以当你在一句话中看到"and"时，你必须小心一点。有时"and"会是内容的一部分，如果它不是连接两个句子，而是连接两个谓词。你们跟上了吗？所以要注意这一点。留意这一点。好，很好。我们已经把那两个以逻辑书的方式列出来了。好，现在试试这一条。嗬。好，我现在并不是让你们立刻就试着做那一个，但我们今天结束之前一定会做那一个。

[段 10]

Okay? But this is another reason we set it out logic book style because you can look straight at those arguments and you can pretty well see what the form is, can’t you? The other ones, you can see whether they’re good arguments you can tell straight off. But this iswhether they’re good arguments. You can tell straight off. But this is, now, those of you who found arguments from magazines or newspapers of this week, were your arguments more like that one? Or more, yes, okay. And this is why they’re so difficult. Because actually, when we’re in the pub arguing with each other about whether euthanasia is acceptable or not, or whether we should go for assisted suicide or not, we add all sorts of things to our arguments. We say things like, well, if that’s true, I’m a Dutchman. What does that mean? If that’s true, I’m a Dutchman. What does that mean in English? It’s not true. So when I say, if that’s true, I’m a Dutchman, all I’m actually saying is that’s not true. Okay. Let’s see if I can think of another one. No, I can’t because I’m doing it off the top of my head. But in English, when we’re talking, We use all sorts of colloquialisms. We add all sorts of things. We have all sorts of ums and ahs and errs.

[译文 10]

好吗？但这是我们以逻辑书的方式列出论证的另一个原因，因为你可以直接看着那些论证，你基本上就能看出它是什么形式，不是吗？其他的，你可以看出它们是不是好的论证，你可以直接判断。但这是……它们是不是好的论证。你可以直接判断。但是这个，现在，你们中间那些找到了本周杂志或报纸上论证的人，你们的论证更像是那一个吗？还是更像……是的，好。这就是它们为什么如此困难。因为实际上，当我们在酒吧里彼此争论安乐死是否可以接受，或者我们是否应该选择协助自杀时，我们在论证中添加了各种各样的东西。我们会说这样的话，嗯，如果那是真的，那我就是个荷兰人了。那是什么意思？如果那是真的，那我就是个荷兰人了。用英语说是什么意思？那不是真的。所以当我说，如果那是真的，那我就是个荷兰人了，我实际上想说的就是那不是真的。好。让我们看看我能否再想到一个。不行，我想不到了，因为我是在即兴发挥。但当我们说英语的时候，当我们交谈的时候，我们使用各种各样的口语表达。我们添加各种各样的东西。我们有各种各样的嗯、啊、呃。

[段 11]

And it makes it very difficult to identify the argument itself. 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. Okay, here’s a set of steps for analysing arguments. I’m not using this microphone, by the way. Can people at the back hear me? Yeah. okay. Here’s a set of steps for analysing arguments. We’re going to follow these steps today andFollow these steps today, and I meant to actually write them out on the board, and I forgot. So you’ll have to keep referring back as I ask you what do we do next. You’ll have to keep referring back to slide 11. Okay. Firstly, let’s look at identifying premises and conclusions. We’ve already done quite a lot of this, so this is fairly easy. We look for the argument indicators, and I’ve given quite a few here. and then we identify, well, okay, in identifying the conclusion, what are we looking for? Tell me again what a conclusion is. Another bit of revision. Now, careful, what is the conclusion? It’s not the reason for the truth of the other premises, the other premises is what you said actually, isn’t it? That’s right. It’s what it is you’re arguing for, isn’t it? It’s the final. You were just getting mixed up there, and it’s very easy to get mixed up.

[译文 11]

这就让识别论证本身变得非常困难。而当你以逻辑书的方式列出一个论证时，你所做的就是去掉所有无关的东西。好，这是一套分析论证的步骤。顺便说一下，我不用这个麦克风。后面的同学能听到我说话吗？能。好，这是一套分析论证的步骤。今天我们会遵循这些步骤，……今天遵循这些步骤，我本来确实打算把它们写在黑板上的，但我忘了。所以当我问你们下一步该做什么时，你们得不断回头查看。你们得不断回头查看第 11 张幻灯片。好。首先，我们来看看如何识别前提和结论。我们已经做了相当多了，所以这相当容易。我们要寻找论证指示词，我在这里列出了不少。然后我们识别，嗯，好，在识别结论时，我们在找什么？再告诉我一次结论是什么。又是复习一下。注意，结论是什么？它不是其他前提为真的原因，其他前提就是你们刚才实际说的内容，不是吗？没错。它就是你要论证的东西，不是吗？它是最终的那个。你刚才有点搞混了，而且很容易搞混。

[段 12]

And when you get mixed up, of course, you invert it, which gets everything wrong. But that’s easy to do. But the conclusion, you can only tell which is the conclusion by looking at the function of that sentence in the argument. And what a conclusion is is the thing you are arguing for. It’s in effect the statement you’re making. And then the premises are,you’re making. And then the premises are? The supporting evidence or the supporting reasons. Got to be a bit careful with evidence because they’re not always arguments rather than evidence. Yeah, exactly. Okay, good. Here’s an easy one. Identify the argument indicators in these arguments. What about the first one? Which is the argument indicator in this one? There are two, actually. Since. Good. Is there another one? Four. Well done. You’re getting good at this. OK. What about this one? Put up your hands this time. I’m going to… OK, what’s the argument indicator in this one? Stick your hand up if you’re… once you’ve found it. because some people, and I have to admit I’m one of them, think quite slowly, and if people yell out, they don’t get a chance to think. Okay, now you can all yell out together. Because, that’s right, yep, good, okay. What about this one? Put your hand up again. Quite easy this one, isn’t it? Okay, again.

[译文 12]

而当你搞混的时候，当然，你会把它颠倒过来，那就一切都错了。但那是很容易犯的错。但结论，你只能通过看那个句子在论证中的功能才能判断哪一个是结论。而结论就是你正在论证的东西。它实际上就是你正在作出的陈述。然后前提是，……你正在作的陈述。然后前提是什么呢？支持的证据或支持的理由。对"证据"要稍微小心一点，因为它们并不总是证据，而更常是论证。是的，完全正确。好，很好。这里有一个简单的题目。在这些论证中识别论证指示词。第一个呢？这里的论证指示词是哪一个？实际上有两个。“Since”。好。还有另一个吗？“Four”。做得好。你们越来越擅长了。好。这个呢？这次举手吧。我要……好，这个论证指示词是什么？一旦你找到了，就……举手。因为有些人，我得承认我也是其中之一，想得比较慢，如果别人喊出来，他们就没有机会思考。好，现在你们可以一起喊出来了。“Because”，对，是的，好，很好。这个呢？再举手。这个挺简单的，不是吗？好，再来。

[段 13]

Yeah, there we are. And there it is. You’ve got them all right. Oh, actually the red isn’t very good, is it? Can you see that I’ve marked them all in red? If you can’t see, you’ll see it on your handout. That’s a shame. I didn’t realise that the red doesn’t show. Okay. Now, we’re going to practice looking at conclusions. Again, we’ve done this before, so this isn’t difficult at all. What’s the conclusion here? What is it? Have another… Shh! Don’t yell out. OK, have another look at the argument. Remind yourself what a conclusion is and tell me. Socrates is mortal. Yes, why did you get that confused? I mean, there’s a very good reason for getting it confused. What is it? What? It’s not at the end. You’ve been expecting to see the conclusion at the end, haven’t you? but as you see from this one it doesn’t need to be at the end in this one it’s in the middle isn’t it so remember what I say you can only tell which is the conclusion by looking at the function played by a particular sentence the conclusion is the sentence you are arguing for ok so here’s the and it’s this in red just as you said Socrates is mortal is the conclusion.Socrates is mortal, is the conclusion. Okay, find the conclusion of this argument.

[译文 13]

是的，就是这里。就是这样。你都找对了。哦，实际上红色标得不太清楚，对吧？你能看到我用红色标出的那些吗？如果你看不清，讲义上也能看到。这真可惜。我之前没意识到红色显示不出来。好的。现在，我们要练习看结论。咱们之前已经练过这个了，所以一点都不难。这里的结论是什么？是什么？再看看……嘘！不要喊出来。好的，再看看这个论证。提醒自己结论是什么，然后告诉我。苏格拉底是会死的。是的，你为什么会搞混呢？我是说，搞混是有很好的原因的。是什么？什么？它不在末尾。你一直期待看到结论出现在末尾，对不对？但你从这个例子可以看到，结论不一定在末尾，在这个例子里它在中间，不是吗？所以记住我说的，你只能通过看一个特定句子所起的作用来判断哪个是结论。结论就是你在为之论证的那句话。好的，就是这个，用红色标出来的，正如你所说，苏格拉底是会死的就是结论。苏格拉底是会死的，这就是结论。好的，找出这个论证的结论。

[段 14]

Now put up your hand again rather than yelling out. And don’t worry if it takes you a bit of time. Some people just do think more slowly and that’s fine. Okay, what is it? Socialism was doomed to failure. Ah, you’re brilliant. There you are, exactly right. Socialism was doomed to failure. Okay, as picked out in red. And what about this one? Hands up. Okay, would you like to have a go? Yes, okay, they will continue to need help from industrial nations. Now, here’s a little hint for something that’s coming. Do you remember I said that setting something out logic book style enables you to remove cross-references, irrelevancies, and whatever the other one was?references, irrelevancies, and whatever the other one was. Okay, looking at this one, can you have an idea of what I meant there? Put up your hands if you think you see what I can mean. Okay? Okay. The sense is misleading because it’s not really confusing. No, that’s actually not what I mean there. I was thinking, I think you thought I meant in the whole argument, but actually I just meant in they will continue to need help from industrial nations. Just looking at the conclusion there, can you see what I might have meant by saying we need to remove cross-references and inconsistent terms and so on? The actual conclusion is newly emerging nations.

[译文 14]

现在再举手回答，不要喊出来。如果花点时间也没关系。有些人就是思维慢一些，那也没关系。好的，是什么？社会主义注定要失败。啊，你们真聪明。你看，完全正确。社会主义注定要失败。好的，如红色标出的那样。那这个呢？举手。好的，你想试试吗？好的，他们将继续需要工业国家的帮助。现在，给你们一个小提示，关于接下来的内容。还记得我说过，用逻辑书格式把内容列出来能让你去掉交叉引用、无关内容，还有一个是什么来着？引用、无关内容，还有一个是什么来着。好的，看这一个，你能不能明白我说的意思？如果你觉得我说的有道理就举手。好吗？好的。感觉上有误导性，因为它其实并不混乱。不，那其实不是我说的意思。我在想，我觉得你以为我是说整段论证，但其实我只是说在"他们将继续需要工业国家的帮助"这句话里。只是看着这个结论，你能不能看出我说"我们需要去掉交叉引用和前后不一致的术语等等"可能是什么意思呢？实际的结论是新兴国家。

[段 15]

Well done. They will continue to need help. Because this they is an anaphoric reference, isn’t it? 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, we’re left with a statement that actually has no meaning, does it, in the they will continue to need to… Well, who’s they? So we need to remove that cross-reference, and we’ll be seeing how to do that later. There’s also a suppressed premise in there. Indeed there is, and we’ll be looking at that later, I think. Good, well done. Okay, there’s the conclusion, though. picked out in red. I’ll pick it out in green next week. Perhaps you could put it in italics. I think it’s…Perhaps you could put it in italics. Yes, okay, that’s a good idea. I’ll do that. Yes, because it’s already in bold. But I could easily do it in… Or I could do it in capital letters, couldn’t I? Okay. Identify all the premises of this argument. And don’t forget that there might be a suppressed premise. Now, this is going to take you a little longer. Don’t call out. You might have to write it down. Put up your hands when you’ve identified the premises of that argument. And a hint, there are two of them. Put up your hand when you’ve finished. you’ll have to paraphrase a little bit and if you’re finding that don’t worry about it if you’re thinking I can’t be right because I’m not using exactly the same words don’t worry about that paraphrase is fine what you mustn’t do is change the meaning of anything but paraphrasing it to get the grammar right or whatever is fine.But paraphrasing it to get the grammar right or whatever is fine.

[译文 15]

答得好。他们将继续需要帮助。因为这个"他们"是一个回指代词，对不对？它把我们带回到已经说过的某样东西，我们需要把它识别出来，因为当我们把它单独分离出来作为结论时，剩下的陈述实际上没有意义，对吧，在"他们将继续需要……“这句话里，嗯，“他们"是谁？所以我们需要去掉那个交叉引用，稍后我们会看到怎么做。里面还有一个隐含前提。确实有，我想我们稍后会讲到。好的，答得好。好的，那才是结论。用红色标出来了。下周我用绿色标出来。也许你们可以用斜体。我觉得……也许你们可以用斜体。是的，好主意。我会那样做的。是的，因为已经是粗体了。但我也可以轻易地用……或者我可以用大写，对不对？好的。识别出这个论证的所有前提。别忘了可能还有一个隐含前提。现在，这会花你们更长一点时间。不要喊出来。你可能需要写下来。当你识别出那个论证的前提后举手。提示一下，有两个前提。完成后举手。你可能需要稍微意译一下，如果你觉得"我不可能是对的，因为我没有用完全一样的词"也不用担心。只要不改变意思，为了语法通顺而进行意译是可以的。但为了语法通顺而意译是可以的。

[段 16]

Okay, right. Would you like to tell us? Yes, in order to have a prosperous economy, you must have incentives. Yep. Okay, that’s premise one. Anyone I can think of. Right, okay. Could you, as it were, write, socialism did not provide the incentives, incentives are needed for prosperous economy. Yes, that would do. Okay, any variation on those themes? So here it is. Premise one, incentives are needed for a prosperous economy. Premise two, socialism did not provide incentives. Conclusion, socialism was doomed to failure. Okay, do you see where both those premises come from? Okay, they’re needed. Which one is the suppressed premise? Yes, that’s right. The first one was suppressed in the original argument, but it’s made explicit as we set out the argument logic book style. And if you had any variation on this theme, that’s fine, so long as it has the same meaning. Does anyone want to check some? Is there another suppressed premise in there, that a prosperous economy is needed for social work? of carnage.Well, I think what you’re thinking, well, is this what you’re thinking of? Doomed to failure. I mean, you want something like you will only succeed if you have a prosperous economy, don’t you? Okay. That’s really, you’ve got that in premise one, haven’t you? or you could have something like you have succeeded only if you have a prosperous economy you could add that you don’t need to make quite honestly if you make explicit everything you might find yourself is that my mobile no it’s yours good well bad but better than it’s being mine I completely accept your point.

[译文 16]

好的。你想告诉我们吗？是的，要拥有繁荣的经济，就必须有激励机制。没错。好的，这就是前提一。有人能想到吗？好的，可以。你能不能，姑且说，写成：社会主义没有提供激励机制，繁荣的经济需要激励机制。是的，那样可以。好的，对这些要点有其他不同的表述吗？就是这样。前提一，繁荣的经济需要激励机制。前提二，社会主义没有提供激励机制。结论，社会主义注定要失败。好的，你们看到这两个前提分别从哪里来的吗？好的，它们是需要的。哪个是隐含前提？是的，没错。第一个原本在原论证中是隐含的，但当我们用逻辑书格式列出论证时，它就变得明确了。如果你对要点有不同的表述，只要意思一样也可以。有人想核对一些吗？里面还有另一个隐含前提吗？社会工作需要繁荣的经济？啊，我想你想到的是，你在想的是这个吗？注定要失败。我的意思是，你需要类似"只有拥有繁荣的经济你才能成功"这样的说法，对吗？好的。其实你已经把它包含在前提一里了，不是吗？或者你可以写成"只有拥有繁荣的经济你才能成功”，你可以把它加进去。说实话，你不需要把所有东西都明确化，你可能会发现这是我手机响了……不，是你手机响……好的，糟了，但比响我手机好。我完全接受你的观点。

[段 17]

I think you could easily add another premise in there and you could say prosperous economies are needed for success, incentives are needed for prosperous economies, socialism did not provide incentives, therefore socialism was not a success or something. Do you see? We could easily have added that one in as well and made explicit two suppressed premises. Yeah, fair enough. Okay, anyone else have anything?Yeah, fair enough. Okay, anyone else have anything? Not quite this? No? Okay, good. Let’s do it again with this one. So since many newly emerging nations do not have the capital resources necessary for sustained growth, they will continue to need help from industrial nations. You’ll find actually as you practice at this, it gets much, much easier. And another trick is, if you’ve not quite seen this, is to identify the sentences that make up the premise, if you can. I mean, here you’ve only got one sentence. And then see what else you need to make an argument. Okay, let’s try some. Many newly emerging countries do not have capital resources. Capital resources are necessary for a sustained growth. Okay, so many newly emerging nations will continue to need help. Yeah. Anyone have anything different? But is it also not suggest that industrial nations do have capital? Yes, that’s certainly implicit in that argument, so you can make it explicit if you like.

[译文 17]

我觉得你可以轻松地在里面再加一个前提，你可以说繁荣的经济是成功所必需的，激励机制是繁荣的经济所必需的，社会主义没有提供激励机制，所以社会主义不是成功的，或类似的意思。明白了吗？我们也可以轻松地把这个加进去，把两个隐含前提明确化。是的，说得对。好的，还有别的吗？是的，说得对。好的，还有别的吗？不是这个？不？好的，很好。我们再用这个练一下。所以，由于许多新兴国家没有持续增长所需的资本资源，他们将继续需要工业国家的帮助。你会发现，当你练习的时候，这会变得越、越容易。还有一个小技巧，如果你还没注意到的话，就是尽可能先识别出构成前提的句子。我是说，这里你只有一个句子。然后看看要形成一个论证你还需要什么。好的，我们试一下。许多新兴国家没有资本资源。资本资源是持续增长所必需的。好的，所以许多新兴国家将继续需要帮助。是的。有人有不同的答案吗？但这是否也暗示了工业国家确实拥有资本？是的，这当然在那个论证中是隐含的，所以如果你愿意也可以把它明确化。

[段 18]

Yeah, okay. Industrial nations need emerging nations to have sustainable growth Well, no, now you’ve got to be careful, because when you’re identifying the premise, don’t put in anything that you happen to believe. What you’re doing is you’re identifying the argument that whoever it is that wrote this is making. Now, we’re not yet evaluating the argument. We may decide that they’re wrong in all sorts of ways, but what we don’t do is add things on. All we’re doing here is sticking to the meaning of the original. We can paraphrase, but we mustn’t change the meaning. To change the meaning is really bad. Really, really bad. Okay, is there anything else that anyone wants to try? Oh, yes, one more. Maybe that the help that the emerging nations need is capital resources because presumably the emerging nations could help in other ways. Yep, okay. When you’re adding suppressed premises, try and be careful not to add more than you need for the argument. Let’s have a look. Let’s see what I put down, and then let’s see whether we still need that. So I’ve put down, many newly emerging nations do not have capital resources. Capital resources are necessary for sustained growth. If a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources, it will need help from industrial nationsresources, it will need help from industrial nations.

[译文 18]

好的，没问题。工业国家需要新兴国家实现可持续增长。嗯，不行，现在你得小心了，因为在你识别前提的时候，不要把你自己碰巧相信的东西加进去。你所做的是识别出写这段话的人所提出的论证。我们现在还不在评价这个论证。我们可能会认为他们在各方面都是错的，但我们不能做的是往上面添东西。我们在这里所做的只是紧扣原文的意思。我们可以改述，但不能改变意思。改变意思是非常糟糕的。真的，真的很糟糕。好，还有其他人想试试吗？哦，好，再来一个。也许新兴国家所需要的帮助是资本资源，因为大概新兴国家可以通过其他方式提供帮助。是的，好的。在你添加隐含前提的时候，尽量小心，不要添加超过论证所需的东西。我们来看一下。看看我写了什么，然后再看看我们是否还需要那个。所以我写的是：许多新兴国家没有资本资源。资本资源对于持续增长是必要的。如果一个新兴国家要维持其增长，而它又没有资本资源，它就需要来自工业国家的资源，它就需要来自工业国家的帮助。

[段 19]

Conclusion, many newly emerging nations will need help from industrial nations. Well, is it? Now, remember in the very first week we looked at the difference between implication and entailment. Does anyone remember what the difference between implication and entailment is? And don’t worry if you don’t, because it’s a very sophisticated distinction, but it’s important to realise. If we’ve got an if-then statement, are we asserting either the antecedent, the if clause, or the consequent, the then clause? Or are we just saying if P then Q? We’re not actually claiming that P or Q, are we? If we say if P then Q. Are you with me? So is there a conclusion in if P then Q? Does something of that structure have the premise and conclusion structure that would make it an argument? No, it doesn’t, does it? What it has is two sentences combined with the logical phrase if then. but actually you’re not claiming anything and you’re not backing up anything by offering reasons so it’s not an argumentoffering reasons. So it’s not an argument, it’s an implication. Do you understand that? Isn’t there another suppressed premise in there, which is that industrial nations are the only source of capital resources? That would be a case of putting in a suppressed premise too far from my perspective, and I think that’s because we haven’t specified what help they need here. we’re just saying okay you’ve got if that then that and that’s saying the if is true if you like so then that we don’t actually need to spell out what the that is I can see why you want that but I would say it’s not necessary for the argument You could just say what?

[译文 19]

结论是，许多新兴国家将需要来自工业国家的帮助。嗯，是这样吗？现在，还记得我们在第一周就讨论过蕴涵和衍推的区别吗？有人记得蕴涵和衍推的区别是什么吗？即使你记不清也没关系，因为这是一个非常精细的区别，但重要的是要意识到。如果我们有一个"如果……那么……“的陈述，我们是在断言前件，即"如果"那一分句，还是后件，即"那么"那一分句？还是我们只是在说如果 P 那么 Q？我们实际上并没有声称 P 真的如此，也没有声称 Q 真的如此，对吧？如果我们说如果 P 那么 Q。你们跟上我了吗？那么在"如果 P 那么 Q"中有结论吗？具有那种结构的句子有前提和结论那种能构成论证的结构吗？没有，对吧？它有的只是用逻辑短语"如果……那么……“连接起来的两个句子。但实际上你什么也没有断言，你也没有通过提供理由来支持什么，所以它不是一个论证。提供理由。所以它不是一个论证，而是一个蕴涵。你们明白吗？那里是不是还有另一个隐含前提，那就是工业国家是资本资源的唯一来源？从我的角度来看，那属于添加了一个过远的隐含前提，我认为那是因为我们这里没有具体说明它们需要什么样的帮助。我们只是在说，好，你有如果这样那么那样，这就说的是如果成立的话，那么那样。我们其实不需要详细说明那个"那样"是什么。我能理解你为什么会想要那个，但我要说的是它对于这个论证来说不是必要的。你只能说什[此处原文不完整]?

[段 20]

Would need help from the World Bank. Well, the issue with the content rather than the structure of the argument is that you just need to let the content go. I don’t agree with it either. The fact is what we’re doing is we’re identifying the argument. We’re not evaluating it yet.Identifying the argument. We’re not evaluating it yet. Do you see the difference? We’re just identifying it, then we evaluate it. So we do have to let the content go. But he is quite right that if there is another suppressed premise there that’s needed for the argument, we need to bring it out. But I don’t think that was one of them. The third premise, I would have thought that the industrial nations have its fair capital resources, because that would be the only way that they could provide help for the new emerging nations. I think that the premise, the third one, would be that the industrial nations have a fair capital distribution. Well, is this argument saying what sort of help they need from… I mean, I agree it’s an implication there, but I don’t think it’s… You said need help from industrial nations, and the only way that they can receive help is if the other ones can’t provide it. and we’re saying that the premise with the capital resources are the same growth so that would be the only type of help that we would be talking about okay so it could be that instead of it will need help we should change that help to capital resources do you see what I mean so it would then read many newly emerging nations do not have capital resources capital resources are necessary for sustained growth if a newly emerging nationsustained growth.

[译文 20]

[会]需要来自世界银行的帮助。嗯，问题在于论证的内容而非结构，你需要让内容过去。我也不同意这个内容。事实是我们正在做的是识别论证。我们还没有在评价它。识别论证。我们还没有在评价它。你看出区别了吗？我们只是在识别它，然后我们再评价它。所以我们的确必须让内容过去。但他完全说对了——如果那里还有另一个论证所需要的隐含前提，我们就需要把它揭示出来。但我不认为那是其中之一。第三个前提，我会认为是工业国家拥有公平[份额的]资本资源，因为那是它们能够为新兴国家提供帮助的唯一途径。我认为那个前提，即第三个，会是工业国家拥有公平的资本分配。嗯，这个论证是不是在说明它们需要什么样的帮助……我是说，我同意那里有一个蕴涵，但我不认为它是……你说的是"需要来自工业国家的帮助”，而它们能够获得帮助的唯一途径是如果其他国家无法提供。我们正在说的是带有资本资源的前提和同样的增长，那就是我们所说的唯一的帮助类型，对吧？所以也许可以这样，不是说"将需要帮助”，我们应该把那个"帮助"改成"资本资源”，你明白我的意思吗？所以那样就会读成：许多新兴国家没有资本资源，资本资源对于持续增长是必要的，如果一个新兴国家要维持其增长。

[段 21]

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. Do you see what I mean? And then in the same way we’d say many newly emerging nations will need capital resources from sustain. So that we would be getting the premise that you want in by removing inconsistent terms rather than by adding another premise. Well, the point is that we’re talking about the two premises that talk about capital resources and therefore the conclusion should be related to capital resources. 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 because I hope then I’ll be able to convince you that it is actually in there, it’s just in there in an inconsistent way. Okay, but do remind me to come back. Is there not a suppressed premise that the only source of help or resources is from industrial nations? Otherwise, the conclusion doesn’t follow. Well, no, because the conclusion is that they will need help. I mean, don’t forget the premises may be false. I mean, nobody’s saying that the premises are true at the moment. We’re just wanting to identify the premise. Now, I’m saying the logic doesn’t follow. Well, that we worry about later. We’re not evaluating the argument at the moment.

[译文 21]

如果一个新兴国家要维持其增长而它又没有资本资源，它就需要来自工业国家的资本资源。你明白我的意思吗？然后同样地我们会说许多新兴国家将需要来自工业国家的资本资源来维持其增长。这样我们就会通过去除不一致的术语，而不是通过添加另一个前提，把你想要的那个前提包含进去。嗯，问题的关键是我们谈的是那两个谈到资本资源的前提，因此结论应当与资本资源相关。但我说的是相关的。好，这样吧，我告诉你，我们等看过了不一致术语之后再回到这个问题上来，因为我希望到那时我能说服你那个意思实际上是在那里的，只是以一种不一致的方式包含在那里。好，但一定要提醒我回来。难道没有一个隐含前提，那就是唯一的帮助或资源来源是工业国家？否则结论就不成立。嗯，不会的，因为结论是它们将需要帮助。我是说，别忘了前提也可能是假的。我是说，现在没有人说这些前提是真的。我们只是想要识别这个前提。我说这个逻辑不成立。嗯，那个我们以后再考虑。我们现在不是在评价这个论证。

[段 22]

We’re just analyzing it. We’re putting down exactly what was said in the argument.down exactly what was said in the argument or what was said and what was implied in the argument. But nowhere in the argument does it say why it needs help from industrial nations. Well I think if we change that to capital resources it does say that. I mean aren’t we implying in this argument that the help that the industrialized nations are giving to the newly emerging nations is capital resources. But it is given that you understand that. Yes, absolutely. But that’s why when we get round to removing inconsistent terms, which we haven’t got round to yet, that’s one of the things we would want to make explicit. So there are different ways of making things explicit. One is by adding suppressed premises, and another is by removing inconsistent terms. and 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. How would you state that using P and Q? I wouldn’t. Not at the moment, I wouldn’t. Okay, now you’ve done so well, we’re going to try the really complicated argument. We’ll do that for the rest of this session. Here’s the argument. okay this is the one by the end of this session you will have analysed this argument and seen how it worksthis argument and seeing how it works.

[译文 22]

我们只是在分析它。我们把论证里所讲的内容原原本本写下来，或者把论证中所讲的内容和所蕴涵的内容原原本本写下来。但是论证里并没有说明为什么需要来自工业国家的帮助。嗯，我认为如果我们把它改成资本资源，它就说明了这个。我是说，我们在这个论证里不是正蕴涵着工业国家给新兴国家提供的帮助就是资本资源吗？它是被设定为你理解这一点。是的，完全是。但这就是为什么当我们回过头来处理不一致的术语——我们还没有处理到那一步——那将是我们想要明确表达的内容之一。所以让东西明确化的方式有不同。一种是通过添加隐含前提，另一种是通过去除不一致的术语。我已经答应过我们做完那一步后会再回到这个论证上来，确保我们在那一点上是清楚的。你会用 P 和 Q 来表述那个吗？我不会。现在不会，我不会。好，现在你们做得这么好，我们要来试一个真正复杂的论证。我们会用这个课堂剩余的时间来做这个。这是那个论证。好，这就是——到本课结束的时候，你们将分析这个论证并看清它是如何运作的。

[段 23]

Okay. Firstly, identify the conclusion of this argument. Okay. Right. Who wants to, who hasn’t had a go? Would you like to have a go? Oh, sorry, I was asking that lady there. You deserve to get scratched. There’s a bit more to it than that. That is part of the conclusion. Well, it’s not if you tickle her tummy, is it? It’s if you, if, okay, somebody, somebody else. Just she didn’t want you to tickle her tummy. Okay, no, wrong. if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserve to get scratched. Absolutely, it’s the whole sentence. It’s actually a conditional conclusion. If the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserve to get scratched. So it’s not that you deserve to get scratched on its own, because you only deserve to get scratched if she did want you to tickle her tummy. Do you see what I mean? The whole thing is a conditional conclusion. And you said something like…And you said something like, if you tickled her tummy, and I wasn’t sure whether you were leaving out that if she wanted you to tickle her tummy, because actually that’s very important, because there’s a big difference between you tickled her tummy and she wanted you to tickle her tummy, isn’t there? And for the purposes of this argument, that’s actually quite an important difference. so the conclusion and I said there was a nice large argument indicator right in front of it and here it is so if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy you deserve to get scratched, that’s the conclusion ok, everyone happy with that? can you see the fact that it’s a conditional sentence, a complex sentence doesn’t stop it from being a conclusion because a conclusion is what?

[译文 23]

好的。首先，找出这个论证的结论。好的。没错。谁想……谁还没试过？你想试试吗？哦，抱歉，我在问那边那位女士。你活该被抓伤。事情可不止这么简单。那是结论的一部分。嗯，如果你挠她的肚子，那不就是了，对吧？如果……嗯……别人……别人。仅仅是因为她不想让你挠她的肚子。好的，不，错了。如果这个小家伙真的想让你挠她的肚子，你活该被抓伤。完全正确，是整句话。这是一个条件式的结论。如果这个小家伙真的想让你挠她的肚子，你活该被抓伤。所以并不是说你本身就活该被抓伤，因为只有当她想让你挠她的肚子时，你才活该被抓伤。你明白我的意思吗？整句话就是一个条件式的结论。你刚才说的大概是……你说的大概是，如果你挠了她的肚子，我不确定你是否漏掉了"如果她想让你挠她的肚子"这个条件，因为这其实非常重要，因为你挠了她的肚子和她想让你挠她的肚子，这两者有很大区别，对吧？而就这个论证而言，这其实是一个相当重要的区别。所以结论就是，我刚才说了它的正前方就有一个很好的、较大的论证指示词，就在这里——如果这个小家伙真的想让你挠她的肚子，你活该被抓伤，这就是结论。好的，大家都同意吗？你们能看出这是一个条件句，一个复合句，但这并不妨碍它成为一个结论，因为结论是什么？

[段 24]

Again? It’s the claim for which you’re arguing. That’s right. It’s the statement that you’re making and that you’re backing up with reasons. Okay, what’s the next thing we do having identified the conclusion? We identify the premises. Okay. Identify the premises of that argument. Yes.Yes. Yeah. Sometimes within an argument, you get sort of sub-arguments. But don’t worry about that. Treat it as a premise, not a conclusion. Okay, I think we’re getting there. I’m going to reveal what I’ve got, and then you can tell me if you’ve got something else. Okay, this is premise one. Well, perhaps she didn’t want you to tickle her tummy, or she didn’t realize that’s what you were going to do. Now, I’ve just realised that I’ve misled you in something because I praised you for leaving out the argument indicators, whereas actually the only argument indicators I want you to leave out are the sincees and the fors and so on. This or here is making these two sentences into a complex sentence. So you should leave that in. okay so the premise there you can see the structure of that can’t you P or Q so the or is part of it yeah no you mustn’t 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 but if you have P or Q do you see that the or is rather different isn’t it logically.

[译文 24]

再说一遍？它是你要为之论证的论断。没错。它是你要提出并用理由来支撑的那个陈述。好的，在确定了结论之后，我们下一步做什么？我们找出前提。好的。找出那个论证的前提。是的。是的。是的。有时候在一个论证中，你会遇到子论证。但暂时不用管那个。就把它当作前提来处理，而不是结论。好的，我觉得我们快接近答案了。我来揭晓我写的内容，然后你们可以告诉我你们是否有不同的答案。好的，这是前提一。也许她不想让你挠她的肚子，或者她没有意识到你打算这么做。现在我刚刚意识到我在某个地方误导了你们，因为我表扬你们漏掉了论证指示词，但实际上我唯一希望你们漏掉的论证指示词是"since"“for"等等。而这里的"or”（或者）是把这两个句子组合成一个复合句。所以你应该把它保留下来。好的，所以在那个前提里，你们可以看到这个结构，对吧？“P or Q”，所以"or"是它的一部分。是的，不，你不能那么做——你唯一能真正那样分开的连接词是"and”，因为如果你有"P and Q”，那么分成两个独立的前提就可以了，但如果你有"P or Q"，你们明白"or"在逻辑上是相当不同的，对吧？

[段 25]

You can’t just have one sentence. If I say, look, here’s a way of doing it, and we’re taking, if I’ve got a pen, yes. Right, we’re moving ahead a little bit here in what I’m going to tell you, so if you start getting confused, just stop your ears up. When we eventually get around to evaluating arguments, what we try and do is to set out the conditions under which each premise is true, so we can then set out the conditions under which they’re all true together. Okay, don’t worry about how we do that at the moment. It’s just that’s what we try and do. Now, if I look at P and Q, I can say, well, this is true. 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? Do you see intuitively that? So what is it for P and Q to be true? 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. So I can represent it just with one line and putting P and Q on the same line. Whereas if I say P or Q, I can’t do that, can I? P or Q is true just in case what? It’s truewhat? Yeah, either P is true or Q is true, or sometimes both.

[译文 25]

你不能只有一个句子。如果我说，看，这里有一种做法，我们在用……如果我有一支笔，是的。好的，我们稍微往前讲一点我要告诉你们的内容，所以如果你开始感到困惑，就捂住耳朵。当我们最终开始评估论证时，我们要做的是列出每个前提为真的条件，这样我们就能列出它们同时为真的条件。好的，暂时不要担心我们怎么做到这一点。只要知道那就是我们要做的。现在，如果我看 P 和 Q，我可以说，嗯，这是真的。这整句话是真的，对吧？如果存在一个世界，其中 P 为真且 Q 为真，对吗？你能凭直觉理解吗？那么 P 和 Q 为真意味着什么？那就是 P 为真且 Q 为真，在同一个世界，或者如果你愿意的话，在同一种情境下。所以我可以用一行来表示，把 P 和 Q 放在同一行。然而，如果我说 P 或 Q，我就不能那么做了，对吧？P 或 Q 恰好在什么情况下为真？它在什么时候为真？是的，要么 P 为真，要么 Q 为真，或者有时两者都为真。

[段 26]

So I’d have to draw two lines and put P on one line and Q on the other, wouldn’t I? In order to say P or Q. So they have, they’re different words, different logical words. And you see how if I separate the P and Q in one premise, it doesn’t really matter. Whereas if I separate the P or Q, it does matter because then I’ve only got one on each line. So I must keep them together. 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. So any complex sentence, just keep them together. Okay, did anyone have something different from that other than just separating the two sentences? And actually, your separating the two sentences was because I misled you in the beginning, so don’t knock yourself for that. I just want to state my complete confusion over this because I don’t understand why they’re not separate. I could understand it if there was some sort of dependence one on the other, but there doesn’t need to be any logical link. Well, think about what we’re doing here. Do you remember I said we’ve got to keep the meaningWhat we’re doing here, do you remember I said we’ve got to keep the meaning? The meaning has got to be the same, whatever else we do.

[译文 26]

所以我就得画两条线，把 P 放在一条线上，把 Q 放在另一条线上，对吧？为了表示 P 或 Q。所以它们是不同的词，不同的逻辑词。你看，如果我把一个前提中的 P 和 Q 分开，其实没什么影响。但如果我把 P 或 Q 分开，那就有影响了，因为那样的话每条线上就只有一个。所以我必须把它们放在一起。事实上，我应该做的是把它们都放在一起，因为此刻你还不知道"and"“or"等等之间的区别。所以任何复合句，就把它们都放在一起。好的，有没有人得出与此不同的结论，除了把两个句子分开之外？实际上，你们把两个句子分开是因为我一开始误导了你们，所以别为此自责。我想完全坦白地说出我的困惑，因为我不明白为什么它们不是分开的。如果它们之间存在某种依赖关系，我能理解，但它们之间并不需要任何逻辑联系。好，想想我们在这里做的事情。还记得我说过我们必须保留意思吗？我们在这里做的事情，还记得我说过我们必须保留意思吗？无论我们还做什么，意思必须保持不变。

[段 27]

Now, this sentence is saying either this is true or this is true. Is that right? Okay, so if we separate them, so we’ve lost the or, we’ve just got this is true and this is true. just but that’s fine because she cannot want you to tickle her and it doesn’t matter whether she realises what you’re doing or not she still doesn’t want you to tickle her so they still stand independently regardless they’re two independent centres I completely agree I mean it might be true that she didn’t want you to tickle her and it might be true that she didn’t realise that you were going to tickle her but what this sentence says is that either this or this and that’s what we have to I mean so the premise of the argument is we start off with either this or this do you remember the first, when we were doing the argument well look at P or Q P sorry, not P therefore Q do you remember that argument P or Q, not P therefore Q Yeah, that I understand. Okay. That’s not the same here. Okay, now I’m not understanding you. Why not? Because…not understanding you, why not? Because there’s a statement which is she doesn’t want you to tickle her tummy. Now, if that is the case, it doesn’t matter whether she realised you wanted to tickle her tummy or not.

[译文 27]

现在，这个句子表达的是要么这个为真，要么那个为真。对吧？好的，所以如果我们把它们分开，那么我们就丢失了"or”，我们只剩下"这个为真"和"那个为真"。只是……但那没关系，因为她不可能既想让你挠她，又不在乎她是否意识到你在做什么，她仍然不想让你挠她，所以它们仍然是独立成立的，它们是两个独立的中心。我完全同意。我的意思是，她不想让你挠她，这可能是真的，她没有意识到你要挠她，这也可能是真的，但这个句子说的是要么这个，要么那个，而这就是我们必须……我的意思是，论证的前提是我们从"要么这个，要么那个"开始，还记得第一个吗，当我们做论证的时候……看 P 或 Q，P……抱歉，非 P，所以 Q，还记得那个论证吗？P 或 Q，非 P，所以 Q。是的，那个我明白。好的。但这里的情况不一样。好的，现在我不懂你的意思了。为什么不一样？因为……我不懂你的意思，为什么不一样？因为有一个陈述是"她不想让你挠她的肚子"。现在，如果情况是这样的话，她是否意识到你想挠她的肚子，这并不重要。

[段 28]

Her reaction was independent of her knowing what… But why is that a problem? Because remember here, the two sentences are completely independent of each other. We talked about if it’s either sunny or rainy. now that shouldn’t give you the because we could say it’s either sunny or windy but you can’t then say if it’s sunny then it’s not windy but we haven’t said that if then is completely different from or if then is a different logical claim so what was this again then? I don’t want to talk about the time no no I’m sure you’re not the only person who’s confused by this All this says here is either this is true or this is true. What’s the next bit of the sentence? And this says this isn’t true, therefore this must be. So listen to the logic again. Either this or this. Sorry, I’ll do it. Either this or that. Not this, therefore that. And it doesn’t matter what this or that is. do you see what I mean so here we say or she didn’tWell, yeah, but hang on. But nothing follows from this. This is only one premise. We’ve got to get the whole argument before anything follows. And you don’t have to be able to do that. No, I was just using that to illustrate that the or can stand between two independent sentences.

[译文 28]

她的反应独立于她是否知道……但这为什么是个问题呢？因为记住，这里两个句子彼此完全独立。我们讲过如果是"要么晴天，要么雨天"。现在这不应该让你得出……因为我们可以说"要么晴天，要么有风"，但你不能因此说"如果是晴天，那就没有风"。但我们并没有说"如果……那么……"。“如果……那么……“是完全不同于"或者"的逻辑论断。那这又是什么？我不想谈时间……不，不，我确信你不是唯一对此感到困惑的人。这里所有的意思就是"要么这个为真，要么那个为真”。句子的下一部分是什么？它说的是"这个不为真，所以这个一定为真”。所以再听一遍这个逻辑。要么这个，要么那个。抱歉，我来。要么这个，要么那个。不是这个，所以是那个。而且不管这个或那个是什么都没有关系。你明白我的意思吗？所以这里我们说"或者她没有……“好，嗯，但是等一下。但从这个并不能推出任何东西。这只是一个前提。我们必须得到整个论证，才能推出任何东西。你们不必能够做到这一点。不，我只是用这个来说明"or"可以连接两个独立的句子。

[段 29]

It doesn’t matter what the sentences are. Their content is irrelevant. Okay, if you still don’t understand that, see me afterwards. Is anyone else still bothered by this? Put your hands up if you want me to go over that again. No, okay. See me afterwards if you still haven’t got it. Okay, does anyone have anything else for premise one than this? Other than having divided the two up? No? Okay, good. premise two if she didn’t realise then you obviously went about it in the wrong way does anyone have something different for that no premise three in that case you deserve to get scratched unless you really thought she was such a perceptive cat that she’d understand woof woof meant roll over sorry say that again why do you need that you deserve to get scratched why can’t you go to, unless youWell, because remember that you’re not evaluating the argument at this point. What you’re doing is you’re trying to capture the meaning of each premise. If you left out in that case, you deserve to get scratched unless… so you just have unless you just have, unless you really thought she was such a perceptive cat, well that’s actually not even a sentence, is it? 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.

[译文 29]

这些句子是什么并不重要，内容也无关紧要。好，如果你还是没听懂，下课来找我。还有谁对这个有疑问的？如果想让我再讲一遍，请举手。没有，好。还没搞懂的话下课来找我。好，关于前提一，除了把两句分开之外，还有谁有别的看法吗？没有？好，很好。前提二，如果她没有意识到，那你显然是用错了方法，有谁对这个有不同意见吗？没有。前提三，在这种情况下，你活该被抓，除非你真的以为她是一只如此有灵性的猫，能听懂汪汪叫的意思是翻身。汪汪。对不起，再说一遍，你为什么需要那句“你活该被抓”呢？为什么不能直接说，除非……嗯，因为记住，你现在并不是在评价这个论证。你现在做的是在试图抓住每个前提的含义。如果你在“在这种情况下”那里漏掉了“你活该被抓”，那就只剩下“除非……”，也就是只剩下“除非你真的以为她是一只如此有灵性的猫”，但这其实根本不是一个完整的句子，对吧？要作为前提，它必须是一个句子。可以是复合句，但它必须是一个句子。

[段 30]

Anyone have anything different there? No? Good. You’re doing very well. premise 4, if you thought that you’re an idiot but you’re not an idiot, you’re just twisted anyone have anything different for that? if you thought that sorry, what did you have? ok ok at this point, I actually sympathise with your having left that out and you’ll see why in a minute. But you shouldn’t have left it out at this point because it is actually in there. So you should put it in. What were you going to say? Well, I was going to say that I didn’t like…What were you going to say? Well, I was going to say that I didn’t like it because I thought it was an irrelevancy, actually. Okay. At the moment, we’re not removing irrelevancies, but perhaps when we do, we’ll take this out. But at the moment, we’ll leave it in. Okay. But your intuition that it’s irrelevant is a good one, as you’ll see in a minute. Okay. So there’s the argument. Set out logic book style. as it actually stands at the moment. But of course we haven’t finished at the moment because we need to remove all sorts of bits and pieces. So on your list of the steps to set out an argument logic style, what’s the third step? We’ve identified the premises and the conclusions.

[译文 30]

有谁对这个有不同的看法吗？没有？很好。你们做得非常好。前提四，如果你那样想，那你就是个白痴，但你不是白痴，你只是心理扭曲。有谁对这个有不同意见吗？——如果你那样想，对不起，你刚才说什么？好，好。说实话，我对你漏掉那句表示理解，你等一下就会明白为什么。但在这个阶段你不应该漏掉它，因为它确实在里面。所以你应该把它加进去。你刚才想说什么？我本来想说我不喜欢……你刚才想说什么？我本来想说我不喜欢它，因为我觉得它其实是无关紧要的。好。目前我们还没到去掉无关内容那一步，但等我们做那一步的时候，可能会把它去掉。不过目前我们先留着它。好。但你的直觉——认为它是无关的——很好，你马上就会看到这一点。好，这就是那个论证。按照逻辑书的形式呈现出来。目前它就是这个样貌。但是当然我们还没完成，因为我们还需要去掉各种各样的零碎内容。那么在你列出的“用逻辑方式呈现一个论证”的步骤清单里，第三步是什么？我们已经识别出了前提和结论。

[段 31]

What do we do next? Sorry? Right. Actually, I’ll tell you now, there aren’t any suppressed premises, so we don’t have to worry with that here. What’s the next step? Remove irrelevancies. Okay, let me see how we’ve done that. Okay, what we need to do is take each premise separately. Now, the nice thing about having identified the premises and the conclusions separately is we can treat each one separately now. We don’t have to do them all at the same time. And that helps us. So let’s look at premise one and let’s remove the irrelevancies from premise one.remove the irrelevancies from premise one. Just get rid of any words that are not contributing to what that sentence means, that are just bits of fluff, if you like. Well, yes, that can go, can’t it? I mean, that doesn’t do anything. What else? Anything else? Perhaps, I think perhaps can go as well. Yep, okay. There’s one more word I’d get rid of actually. Not or, no. Tummy. Who said tummy? Yep, you can get rid of tummy, can’t you? So what you’ve got is she didn’t want you to tickle her or she didn’t realise that was what you were going to do. So here we are. They’re green. Is that green easier than red? Okay. So if we get rid of well, perhaps, and tummy, we’ve got she didn’t want you to tickle her, or she didn’t realize that’s what you were going to do.

[译文 31]

下一步我们要做什么？抱歉？好。其实我现在就告诉你们，这里没有任何被省略的前提，所以我们不用担心这一步。接下来的步骤是什么？去掉无关内容。好，让我看看我们是怎么做的。好，我们需要做的是逐个处理每个前提。好的一点是，既然我们已经把前提和结论分开识别出来了，现在就可以逐个处理了。不必一次性全部处理，这对我们很有帮助。所以我们来看前提一，把前提一里的无关内容去掉。把前提一里的无关内容去掉。去掉任何对句子含义没有贡献的词，纯粹是废话之类的。好，嗯，那个可以去掉，对吧？我的意思是，它没有任何作用。还有别的吗？还有别的吗？也许，我觉得“也许”也可以去掉。对，好。其实还有一个词我也想去掉。不是 or，不对。是 tummy。谁说的 tummy？对了，tummy 也可以去掉，对吧？所以你剩下的就是“她不想让你挠她”，或者“她没有意识到你要挠她”。好了，就是这样。这些是绿色的。绿色是不是比红色更好理解？好。所以如果我们去掉了 well、perhaps 和 tummy，我们就得到：“她不想让你挠她，或者她没有意识到那是她要做的事”。

[段 32]

Okay. Let’s try premise two. What have you got? Then and obviously. If she didn’t realise? I’ll leave the then in. But the obviously can go, can’t it? The obviously is just a bit of you know, whether it was obvious or not is completely irrelevant. It might not have been obvious. It wouldn’t really matter, would it? Okay, so we take out the obviously. Next, premise three.So we take out the obviously. Next, premise three. You’d take out only really, unless you really thought. You can certainly take out really. Yeah. Really, such, she is, she has. In that case. Not in that case. Why not in that case? Can anyone? It refers to a previous premise. Exactly. it says if that is true then something so in that case it’s really very important ok I’ll show you what I’d take out I’d take out the lot in that case you deserve to get scratched because actually if you look at the fourth premise 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 This is just a little insult that somebody’s putting into the argument in order to ram it home, isn’t it? Oh, come on, you idiot. You can’t not believe this, which means what? Well, it means just this, doesn’t it? If I say P, and you’re an idiot if you don’t believe it, what am I saying?

[译文 32]

好。我们来看前提二。你得到什么了？then 和 obviously。If she didn’t realise？then 我会留着。但 obviously 可以去掉，对吧？obviously 只是那个，意思就是说，当时是不是很明显，这完全无关紧要。也许并不明显。这其实也无所谓，对吧？好，所以把 obviously 去掉。下一个，前提三。所以我们把 obviously 去掉。下一个，前提三。你只需要去掉 really，例如“除非你真的以为”。really 当然可以去掉。对。还有 really、such、she is、she has。“In that case”。不是 in that case。为什么不能是 in that case？有谁能说说原因吗？它指的是前一个前提。没错。它说的是，如果那是真的，那么某件事，所以“在这种情况下”这个说法其实非常重要。好，我来展示一下我会去掉哪些，我会把整个 in that case you deserve to get scratched 都去掉，因为其实如果你看第四个前提——也就是“我也会把它整个去掉”的那个——“如果你那样想，那你就是个白痴，但你不是白痴，你只是心理扭曲”——这只不过是把一句小小的侮辱话塞进论证里，好让论证显得更无可辩驳，对吧？噢，得了吧，你这个白痴。你不可能不相信这个，这意味着什么？嗯，这意思其实就是，对吧？如果我说 P，而你不相信的话你就是个白痴，那我究竟在说什么？

[段 33]

Just on the whole. Well, yes, I’m also saying you’re an idiot if I put it that way, don’t I? so premises foughtPremises four can go completely and premise three. To see that, let’s go back to the whole argument. 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, try reading it out loud because the tone you put on it will give you a much better idea of where you’re going with the logic. So let’s read it out. well perhaps she didn’t want you to tickle her tummy or she didn’t realise that’s what you were going to do if she didn’t realise then you obviously went about it in the wrong way in that case you deserve to get scratched well unless you really thought she was such a perceptive cat that she’d understand woof woof meant roll over but if you thought that you’re an idiot but you’re not an idiot you’re just twisted so if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy you deserve to get scratched you see this actually cancels itself out from here because you’re saying let’s look at the structure of it P unless Q okay Q is you really thought she was such a perceptive cat that she’d understand woof woof meant roll over okay if you thought so if Q then you’re an idiot.

[译文 33]

总体来说。嗯，对，如果我那样说，我其实也在说你是个白痴，对吧？所以前提四——前提四可以完全去掉，前提三也是。为了看清这一点，我们回到整个论证。好。我来给你们读一遍，因为有时候这样会容易得多。如果你发现自己对一个论证感到困惑，试着把它大声读出来，因为你赋予它的语气会让你更清楚地知道逻辑的走向在哪里。好，我们来读一下。“嗯，也许她不想让你挠她肚子，或者她没有意识到那是她要做的事。如果她没有意识到，那你显然是用错了方法。在那种情况下，你活该被抓。嗯，除非你真的以为她是一只如此有灵性的猫，能听懂汪汪叫的意思是翻身。但是如果你那样想，那你就是个白痴，但你不是白痴，你只是心理扭曲。所以如果这只可怜的小东西真的想让你挠她肚子，那你活该被抓。”你看，其实从这里开始它就自己抵消了，因为你在说的是——我们来看一下它的结构——P，除非 Q。好，Q 是“你真的以为她是一只如此有灵性的猫，能听懂汪汪叫的意思是翻身”。好，如果你那样想——所以如果 Q，那你就

[段 34]

If Q, then R, but not R. And you’re just twisted as just an insult added on. P and less Q, if Q, then R, but not R. Can you see how that all cancels each other out? P and less Q. If Q, then R, but not R. so it all just becomes but again don’t worry about the letters I’ve put in here just do it in your own try reading it out and see what really counts ok so here’s the argument with the irrelevancies oh ok one more thing, the conclusion I’ve just taken out the tummy again because we took out the tummy from the first premise so do it in the conclusion. So here’s the argument with the irrelevancies removed. And I hope you agree it starts to look much more simple, much easier to evaluate. 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, then you went about it in the wrong way. In that case, you deserve to get scratched. So if the poor thing did want you to tickle her, you deserve to get scratched. But let’s continue. What’s the next Sorry, question first. It could be a conclusion, but don’t forget anything could be a conclusion. A conclusion is just the role that something plays in an argument.

[译文 34]

如果 Q，那么 R，但不是 R。“你只是心理扭曲”只是一句附加上去的侮辱话。P，除非 Q。如果 Q，那么 R，但不是 R。你能看出它们怎么互相抵消吗？P，除非 Q。如果 Q，那么 R，但不是 R。所以它整个就变成了——但同样，不要在意我在这里用的字母，用你自己的方式试试，大声读出来，看看真正起作用的到底是什么。好，所以这就是去掉了无关内容之后的论证——哦，好，还有一件事，结论里我又把 tummy 去掉了，因为我们在第一个前提里已经去掉了 tummy，所以在结论里也去掉。好，这就是去掉了无关内容之后的论证。我希望你们同意，它看起来简单多了，也更容易评估了。“她不想让你挠她，或者她没有意识到那是她要做的事。如果她没有意识到，那你用错了方法。在这种情况下，你活该被抓。所以如果这只可怜的小东西真的想让你挠她，那你活该被抓。”但我们继续。下一个是什么——抱歉，先问个问题。它可以是一个结论，但别忘了，任何东西都可能是一个结论。结论只是某个东西在一个论证中所扮演的角色。

[段 35]

And in this argument, this is not playing the role of a conclusion. It is perhaps playing the role of a sub-conclusion, but this is the conclusion. Do you see again, remember that the conclusion is that for which you’re arguing. And that’s the only thing that makes it a conclusion. But you’re absolutely right, that could play the role of a conclusion. Okay, what’s the next step? No? Remove inconsistent terms. Okay, and cross-references. Okay, inconsistent terms. What do we mean by inconsistent terms? Well, if we go back to that argument that we were looking at earlier. Okay, this one. Do you see how people wanted to have another premise in there, something about industrial nations need to give emerging nations capital resources or whatever it was? if we look round to this oneIf we look round to this one, if a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources, it will need help from industrial nations. What does this need help mean? It will need, what’s the help that is implied here? Capital resources. So we’re using two different terms for capital resources, aren’t we? Here we’re using capital resources and here we’re using just help. But actually they mean the same thing, don’t they? So actually the way this argument, we can reveal the argument much more carefully by saying many newly emerging nations do not have capital resources.

[译文 35]

在这个论证中，这并不是作为结论出现的。它也许扮演的是子结论的角色，但结论是这个。你再看，记住结论是你要论证的东西。这也是它成为结论的唯一原因。但你说得完全没错，它确实可以扮演结论的角色。好了，下一步是什么？没人说吗？去掉不一致的术语。好的，还有交叉引用。好的，不一致的术语。我们所说的不一致的术语是什么意思呢？嗯，如果我们回到之前看过的那个论证。是的，就是这个。你有没有看到大家想在中间再加一个前提，类似于工业国家需要向新兴国家提供资本资源之类的内容？如果我们转过来看这个——如果我们转过来看这个，如果一个新兴国家要维持其增长，而它又没有资本资源，那么它就需要工业国家的帮助。这里的"需要帮助"是什么意思？它需要什么？这里暗示的帮助是什么？是资本资源。所以我们用了两个不同的词来表示资本资源，对不对？这里我们用了资本资源，而这里我们只用了帮助。但实际上它们的意思是一样的，对吧？所以其实这个论证的方式是，我们可以通过说"许多新兴国家没有资本资源"来更仔细地揭示这个论证。

[段 36]

Capital resources are necessary for sustained growth. 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. Many newly emerging nations will need capital resources from emerging nations. Could you use a pronoun like them? Can you use what, sorry? A pronoun like them instead of them. Well, you couldn’t use them there, will you? Many newly emerging nations will need, oh, them, you mean capital resources. I see, I’m sorry. No, well…No. Well, what you’re aiming to do is to reveal the structure of the argument, and you do that by getting rid of as many things that are distracting you from the structure of the argument as you can. And one of the things that’s distracting you here is the fact that two different words or phrases are used for the same thing. So what you do is you change them so that you’re using the same word throughout the argument. Now, you could just use, many newly emerging nations do not have help. Help is necessary for sustained growth. I mean, this suggests we shouldn’t use help, doesn’t it? Okay, so let’s use capital resources instead. Them is actually a pronoun that, on the whole, you’re trying to get rid of rather than put in. So I wouldn’t use that, but I see why you wanted to.

[译文 36]

资本资源对持续增长是必要的。如果一个新兴国家要维持其增长，而它又没有资本资源，那么它就需要工业国家的资本资源。许多新兴国家需要新兴国家的资本资源。能不能用像"them"这样的代词？可以用什么，抱歉？用像"them"这样的代词来代替them。嗯，你不能在那里用them，对吗？许多新兴国家需要，哦，them，你是指资本资源。我明白了，抱歉。不，嗯……不行。嗯，你要做的是揭示论证的结构，你通过尽可能多地去除那些使你偏离论证结构的东西来做到这一点。而这里干扰你的一个事情是，同一个事物用了两个不同的词或短语。所以你要做的就是改变它们，使你在整个论证中使用相同的词。现在，你可以说，许多新兴国家没有帮助。帮助对持续增长是必要的。我的意思是，这表明我们不应该用"帮助”，对吧？好的，那我们用"资本资源"来代替。“them"实际上是一个你总体上要避免使用而不是放进去的代词。所以我不会用它，但我理解你为什么想用。

[段 37]

Yeah. Okay, do you see what I mean about removing inconsistent terms then? Have I convinced you? you were right about what so you need to put so that should be capital resources yes you were right about that but I hope I was right that that wasn’t a suppressed premise it’s a matter of an inconsistent term needing to be removed or needing to be made consistent. So let’s try it with this, the argument we’re looking at now. I’ve now forgotten which slide we were on. Now I was just explaining what inconsistent terms are. Okay, that’s what an inconsistent term is. What about a cross-reference? If we’ve got Marianne always wears jeans on Fridays, she is wearing jeans. I’ve forgotten what the argument is. What have we got there that we could, I mean, it’s like an inconsistent term. She, she. Not the jeans, but she. Because she is referring to Marianne. So either make both she, that would be fine, but it might fall down elsewhere in the argument, or make both Marianne. So remove the she and make it explicit that you mean Marianne. So let’s try that in this premise. Now, a hint here. We’re going to leave the she in here because throughout the argument it’s she, isn’t it? We’re never introduced to the cat’s name. We don’t know what her name is.

[译文 37]

是的。好的，你明白我说的去掉不一致的术语的意思了吗？我说服你了吗？你说对了什么，所以你需要放，所以那应该是capital resources，是的，你说得对，但我希望我是对的，那不是一个被压抑的前提，而是一个需要被去除的或需要被保持一致的不一致术语的问题。那么我们用这个来试试，我们现在看的这个论证。我现在已经忘了我们在哪一张幻灯片上了。我刚才一直在解释什么是不一致的术语。好的，那就是不一致的术语。那交叉引用呢？如果我们有"玛丽安周五总是穿牛仔裤，她正穿着牛仔裤”。我忘了那个论证是什么了。我们在那里有什么可以，我的意思是，就像一个不一致的术语。She, she。不是牛仔裤，而是she。因为she指的是玛丽安。所以要么两个都用she，那也可以，但它可能在论证的其他地方出问题，要么两个都用玛丽安。所以去掉she，清楚地表明你指的是玛丽安。那么我们在这个前提中试试这个。现在，这里有一个提示。我们将把she留在这里，因为在整个论证中都是she，对吧？我们从来不知道那只猫的名字。我们不知道她叫什么。

[段 38]

And nor is she referred to as the cat at any point or anything like that. So, in fact, this isn’t an inconsistent term. it’s consistent throughout, even though it’s exactly the sort of thing that you would usually be removing.it’s exactly the sort of thing that you would usually be removing. So she didn’t want you to tickle her, or she didn’t realise that’s what you were going to do. Anyone can see anything that you want to… Put up your hand if you see something that you’d like to remove. She didn’t want you to tickle her, or she didn’t realise you were going to tickle her. That was what you were going to do, stands in for you were going to tickle her, doesn’t it? we’re not changing the meaning by making those two terms consistent. We’re just making explicit something that in the original premise is left implicit. And here it is. She didn’t want you to tickle her or she didn’t realize that you were going to tickle her. I’ve left the that out, but that doesn’t matter. See? Okay, anyone have any problems with that? No? Okay, let’s move on. What about premise two? if she didn’t realise then you went about it in the wrong way very nearly right, the first bit was certainly right if she didn’t realise you were going to tickle her do you see you need to add this in because otherwise if she didn’t realise isn’t actually a sentence is it until you add you were going to tickle her so you complete that sentence by adding that in what about the second half, anyone have any ideas here you tickled her wrongly then you were going to tickle her in the wrong way.

[译文 38]

而且它也没有在任何地方被称为the cat或类似的东西。所以，事实上，这并不是一个不一致的术语。它在整个论证中是一致的，尽管它通常正是你会被要求去除的那种东西。它通常正是你会被要求去除的那种东西。所以她不想让你挠她，或者她没有意识到你打算那样做。任何人都可以看到任何你想看到的东西……如果你看到想要去掉的东西，请举手。她不想让你挠她，或者她没有意识到你打算挠她。那正是你打算要做的，代替了"你打算挠她"，对吗？我们通过让这两个术语一致并没有改变意思。我们只是把原前提中隐含的内容显性化了。就是这个。她不想让你挠她，或者她没有意识到你打算挠她。我把that省略了，但那没关系。看到了吗？好的，有人对此有疑问吗？没有？好的，我们继续。前提二呢？如果她没有意识到，那么你做的方式就是错的——非常接近了，第一部分肯定是对的——如果她没有意识到你打算挠她，你看到你需要把这个加进去，因为否则的话"如果她没有意识到"本身并不是一个完整的句子，对吧，你得加上"你打算挠她"才算完整，所以你要通过加上它来完成这个句子。那后半部分呢，有人有什么想法吗？你挠她的方式错了——那么你打算以错误的方式挠她。

[段 39]

Yes, something like that. Keep it as similar as possible because…like that keep it as similar as possible because all you’re doing is trying to get rid of the complications you’re trying to make it as simple as possible so as to reveal the structure of the arguments and you do that by getting rid of all the things that that are just confusing you so if she didn’t realize you were going to tickle her then you were going to tickle her in the wrong way okay anyone any questions about that no good premise three good well done in that case refers back to the previous premise doesn’t it and it says if you were going to tickle her in the wrong way you deserve to get scratched there’s two quite separate sentences aren’t there you were going to tickle her in the wrong way and she didn’t realize you were going to tickle her. Now those are different sentences. You mustn’t conflate them because actually they matter to the argument, very much so. Okay, any other questions about premise three? No, let’s move on. What about the conclusion? It’s an easy one, isn’t it? Okay, if she did want you to tickle her, you deserve to get scratched. Okay, so we take out the poor thing and put in she. Okay. Question? Yes, sorry. Does the conclusion not have to stand as a sentence that makes sense in its own right?

[译文 39]

是的，类似那样。尽量保持相似，因为……像那样，尽量保持相似，因为你只是试图去除那些复杂的东西，你试图让它尽可能简单，以揭示论证的结构，你通过去除所有那些只是让你感到困惑的东西来做到这一点。所以如果她没有意识到你打算挠她，那么你就打算以错误的方式挠她。好的，有任何问题吗？没有，好的。前提三，很好，做得好——在那种情况下，指代回前面的前提，对吧，它说如果你打算以错误的方式挠她，你就活该被抓伤——这是两个相当独立的句子，对吧？你打算以错误的方式挠她，以及她没有意识到你打算挠她。现在这些是不同的句子。你不能把它们混为一谈，因为实际上它们对论证很重要，确实非常重要。好的，关于前提三还有其他问题吗？没有，我们继续。结论呢？这是个简单的，对吧？好的，如果她确实想让你挠她，你就活该被抓伤。好的，所以我们把"the poor thing"去掉，放上she。好的。有问题吗？有的，抱歉。结论难道不必须作为一个独立成立的有意义的句子吗？

[段 40]

This has bothered me from the verythat makes sense in its own right. This has bothered me from the very beginning. If you did want you to tickle her, you deserve to get scratched. It doesn’t make any sense. Yes, it does. What is that telling you? She wanted you to tickle her and you deserve… Well, if the poor cat wanted you to tickle her… Oh, I see. You think… OK. If she wanted you to tickle her… You deserve to get scratched. Okay, I see where you’re going. It is a sentence, but you’re wanting… Okay, shall I tell you what you’re doing? And I completely sympathise with what you’re doing. 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. What you’re doing is you’re trying to put the logic in here. Okay, you’re trying to make this… You’re trying to make it all follow so that it makes sense as an argument. And what you should be doing is just trying to identify what is said here. What you want to put in is this, I think. So if she did want you to tickle her, but you went about it in the wrong way or something like that, then you deserve to get scratched. Is that right?

[译文 40]

这从一开始就让我感到困扰——这作为一个独立句子是有意义的。这从一开始就让我感到困扰。如果你想你挠她，你就活该被抓伤。这完全说不通。不，它说得通。这告诉你什么？她想让你挠她，而你活该……嗯，如果那只可怜的猫想让你挠她……哦，我明白了。你认为……好的。如果她想让你挠她……你活该被抓伤。好的，我明白你的意思了。它是一个句子，但你想……好的，让我告诉你你在做什么。我完全同情你的做法。而且，你并不是这间屋子里唯一这样做的人。你可能是唯一一个敢来质疑我的人。你所做的就是试图把逻辑放进去。好的，你试图让这个……你试图让它一切都顺理成章，从而作为一个论证说得通。而你应该做的只是试图识别这里说了什么。我想你希望放进去的是这个。所以，如果她确实想让你挠她，但你用了错误的方式或类似什么，那么你就活该被抓伤。是这样吗？

[段 41]

Because the conclusion is then, you know, there’s a missing link to the premises. somehow for me in the conclusion. But the conclusion… Yeah, you’re wrong. Okay. That’s all I’ll say right now. You’re wrong. What you should do is have a look at the argument over the week and if you’re still thinking that, if you still don’t see what I’m saying, come and see me next week and I’ll explain it again. This will convince you. I’m going to reveal the structure of this argument by formalising it. And if that doesn’t convince you, nothing will. Okay. We’re going to put it into P’s and Q’s and it will be a revelation to you how putting it into P’s and Q’s will make it make much more sense. Okay. What we’ve got to do is identify each of the constituent sentences of the argument and assign it a sentence letter. Now, have I gone… No, okay, I haven’t done this. Okay. Let’s look at premise one. We’ve got to identify the constituent sentences of that premise and assign it a letter. So just looking at premise one, what are the constituent sentences? What’s the first one? She didn’t want you to tickle her. She didn’t want you to tickle her. Okay, and the other one? you can do itone? She didn’t realize you were only going to tickle her.

[译文 41]

因为结论是,你知道,这之间和前提之间缺了一个环节。对我来说在结论里总觉得少了点什么。但结论……是的,你是错的。好吧。我现在就说这么多。你是错的。你应该做的是这一周好好看看这个论证,如果你还是这么认为,如果还是不明白我在说什么,下周来找我,我会再解释一遍。这个会让你信服的。我要用形式化的方法揭示这个论证的结构。如果连这都不能让你信服,那就什么都不行了。好。我们要把它们写成 P 和 Q,你会发现把它们写成 P 和 Q 后,会让一切变得更加清晰,这对你来说会是一个启示。好。我们要做的是识别论证中的每一个组成句子,并给它一个句子字母。等等,我有没有……不,好,我还没做这个。好。我们来看前提一。我们需要识别这个前提的组成句子,并给它们一个字母。看看前提一,组成句子是什么?第一个是什么?她不想让你挠她。她不想让你挠她。好,另一个呢?你可以做那个吗?她没有意识到你只是想挠她。

[段 42]

Okay, well here are two sentences. 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. And I’d rather, P for this one. Good. Okay. What about the next one? Q. Well done. Good choices, I have to say. Okay. So whenever we use the sentence letter P, that means that sentence. It’s just standing in for that sentence. Okay. And whenever you use the sentence letter Q, that just stands in for that sentence. Okay. It’s dead simple. Nothing magical about these things at all. And the reason we use capital letters from this side, this part of the alphabet, that’s just conventional. If we use capital letters like F, G, etc., we tend to use them for other parts of the language. And if we use lowercase letters like A, B, C, that’s for another part of language. So there is conventions about which part of language you use for which sentence letters. So that’s why I want you to use letters from here. Okay, so premise one has two constituents.So premise one has two constituent sentences. She didn’t want you to tickle her and she didn’t realise you were only going to tickle her and we’ve labelled them P and Q. Okay, premise two. What are the constituent sentences in this one?

[译文 42]

好的,这里有两个句子。我们给它们标上句子字母。我本想问你们想选哪个,但我想让你们选特定的几个。所以你们可以选 P 或 Q。我更倾向于,这个用 P。很好。好。下一个呢?Q。答得好。说实话,选得不错。好。所以每当我们用句子字母 P 时,就代表那个句子。它只是代表那个句子。好。每当你用句子字母 Q 时,它就代表那个句子。好。简单得很。这些东西一点魔法都没有。我们用这一部分字母表的大学字母,只是一个惯例。如果我们用像 F、G 这样的字母,我们通常会把它们用于语言的其他部分。如果我们用像 a、b、c 这样的小写字母,那是用于语言另一部分的。所以对于哪部分语言用哪些句子字母,是有惯例的。所以这就是为什么我让你们用这一部分的字母。好,前提一有两个组成句子。所以前提一有两个组成句子。她不想让你挠她,以及她没有意识到你只是想挠她,我们已经把它们标为 P 和 Q。好,前提二。这个里的组成句子是什么?

[段 43]

What’s the first one? She didn’t realise you were only going to tickle her. Well, we’ve got that already, haven’t we? So we don’t need to put that down. What about the other one? You were going to tickle her in the wrong way. Okay. You were going to tickle her in the wrong way. Okay, it needs a sentence letter. What should we have? Oh, good. Yes, well done. You’ve got the idea here. See, you can formalise things dead easily. Okay, that’s premise two, isn’t it? Good. Premise three? okay you were going to tickle her in the wrong way that’s that that’s r again you deserve to get scratched okay you deserve to get scratched what should we call that s good okay and conclusion so if she did want you to tickle her now that’s interesting because up here we’ve got she didn’t want you to tickle her now doyou to tickle her. Now do it, I’m going to put her outside the room. No, it’s very good that you question things because that’s important. We won’t need another sentence letter because what can we use instead? Not P, can’t we? You certainly don’t need P and not P because you’ve got that just in having P and the logical word not. Okay? So if she did want you to tickle her, you deserve to get scratched.

[译文 43]

第一个是什么?她没有意识到你只是想挠她。嗯,我们已经有了这个,不是吗?所以我们不需要再写一遍了。另一个呢?你挠她的方式不对。好。你挠她的方式不对。好,它需要一个句子字母。我们应该叫它什么?哦,很好。是的,答得不错。你已经明白要领了。看,你可以非常容易地把东西形式化。好,这就是前提二,对吧?好。前提三?好,你挠她的方式不对,这就是那个,又是 R。你活该被抓。好,你活该被抓,我们应该叫它什么?S,很好。好,然后是结论。所以如果她真的想让你挠她,这就很有意思了,因为上面我们写的是她不想让你挠她。现在做,我把她赶到房间外面去。不,你能质疑事情是很好的,因为这很重要。我们不需要另一个句子字母,因为我们可以用什么来代替?非 P,对吧?你当然不需要 P 和非 P,因为你只要有 P 和逻辑词"非"就可以了。好吧?所以如果她真的想让你挠她,你就活该被抓。

[段 44]

Do we need anything else? That’s S already. Exactly. So here we’ve got all the sentences that make up the argument, haven’t we? All the sentences that constitute the argument. Now, I need somebody to hold this, please. Somebody come up and hold this for me. Okay. There we have an interpretation. That’s what that’s called, an interpretation. Now, premise one, what’s the form of that? There’s a logical word in that that’s holding together two sentences. What are the sentences and what are the logical words? P or Q. Good. That’s premise one, isn’t it? What’s premise two? So if… Is it Q? She didn’t realise. Okay, if Q then, not therefore, your confusing implication and entailment, whoever that was. If Q then S, was it? R. R, okay. Then the third premise, if you were going to tickle her in the wrong way, you deserve to get scratched. If R, then S. And the conclusion is if not P, then where’s the not? Where’s the not? No, it’s not wrong. You’ll be outside too in a minute. You’re putting the E knot in front of the P. There was no knot. No, I’m putting the… Hang on. I’m putting the knot in front of the P because we’ve got P was she didn’t want you to tickle her and the knot here is if she did want you to tickle her.

[译文 44]

还需要别的吗?那就是 S。已经对了。所以这里我们有了构成论证的所有句子,对吧?所有组成论证的句子。现在,我需要有人来帮我举一下这个。请上来一个人帮我举着这个。好。我们这里有一个解释。那就是它的名字,解释。现在,前提一,它的形式是什么?里面有一个逻辑词把两个句子连在一起。是哪两个句子,逻辑词是什么?P 或 Q。很好。这就是前提一,对吧?前提二是什么?所以如果……是 Q 吗?她没有意识到。好,如果 Q 那么,不是"因此",你把蕴涵和推论混在一起了,不管刚才是谁说的。如果是 Q 那么 S,是不是?R。R,好。然后第三个前提,如果你挠她的方式不对,你活该被抓。如果 R,那么 S。结论是如果非 P,那么"非"在哪里?“非"在哪里?不,没错。等一下你也要到外面去。你把非号放在了 P 前面。这里没有非号。不,我是在把……等等。我把非号放在 P 前面,因为我们 P 是她不想让你挠她,而这里的非号是如果她想让你挠她。

[段 45]

Okay. But this says you deserve to get scratched, doesn’t it? And this says you deserve to get scratched. There’s no knot snuck in here. I’m saying not P, but I’m not saying not L.I’m saying not P, but I’m not saying not S, am I? If you’re making things something worse, you have to put the minus in front of false. No, you don’t. No, because, well, what you put, actually, if you use, if you use, no, this says, if not P, then S. Whoops. No. No, that’s. Okay, it’s only the P that’s been negated, not the S. Not the S. Okay. You’re getting me confused now. Hold on, we’ve got four minutes to go. Let’s finish. Okay, that’s fine. Actually, no, we might need that in a minute. Stay there. Okay, so this PQRS, and here’s premise one. Oh, I was going to make you do it like this, but it’s all right, you’ve done it. So there’s the whole argument, which is exactly what you’ve had there, what you’ve got there. Oops. I should have put a not there, shouldn’t I? And I haven’t, but that’s my mistake, okay? There’s only a not there. She didn’t want you to tickle her or she didn’t realise you were going to tickle her. Okay, that’s a straightforward either or, isn’t it? Either this is the case or that’s the case.

[译文 45]

好。但这里写的是你活该被抓,对吧?这里写的也是你活该被抓。这里没有偷偷塞进去的非号。我说的是非 P,但我说的不是非 L。我说的是非 P,但我说的不是非 S,不是吗?如果你想把事情变得更糟,你得把负号放在假的前面。不,不用。不,因为,实际上,你放的是,如果你用,如果你用,不,这里写的是,如果非 P,那么 S。哎呀。不。不,那是。好,只有 P 被否定了,S 没有。S 没有。好。你现在把我搞糊涂了。等一下,我们还有四分钟。结束吧。好,没事。实际上,不,我们等一下可能还需要那个。待在原地。好,这就是 PQRS,这是前提一。哦,我本来想让你们这样做的,但没关系,你们已经做出来了。这就是整个论证,正好就是你们之前有的,你们那里有的。哎呀。我应该在那里放一个"非”,不是吗?我没有,那是我的错,好吧?那里只有一个"非"。她不想让你挠她,或者她没有意识到你打算挠她。好,这就是一个简单的"或",对吧?要么是这样,要么是那样。

[段 46]

Then this says, if she didn’t realise that you were going to tickle her, then you were going to tickle her in the wrong way. Now, obviously, if you like, something’s happened. She’s scratched you, 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. So going about it gently, puss, puss, puss, you shoved your hand into her tummy and scratched. So if she didn’t realise you were going to tickle her, then she… And the implication there is that if she had realised, you wouldn’t have got scratched. Is that right? That’s the implication there. If she had realised, you wouldn’t have got scratched. Okay? She wanted you to. No, we’re not talking about wanting here at all. No, but the premises are separate. The premises are completely separate. We’re looking at the meaning of each one separately. Okay, so this one, the implication is if she had realised, then you wouldn’t have got scratched. If you were going to tickle her in the wrong way, you deserve to get scratched. Okay, so there’s a question of dessert coming in here. And so the conclusion is, if she did want you to tickle her, and you went about it in the wrong way…way then you deserve to get scratched so the poor thing was longing for you to tickle her and and what she did when you did tickle her was scratch you well why did that happen because you went about it in the wrong way have we got it right I’m going to shut you up now.

[译文 46]

然后这里说,如果她没有意识到你打算挠她,那么你挠她的方式就错了。显然,如果你愿意的话,事情已经发生了。她已经抓了你,不是吗?有人说,如果她没有意识到你打算挠她,那么显然你的方式不对。所以轻轻地过去,喵喵喵,你把手直接伸到她的肚子上,然后就被抓了。所以如果她没有意识到你打算挠她,那么她……这里的含义是,如果她意识到了,你就不会被抓。对吗?这就是其中的含义。如果她意识到了,你就不会被抓。好吗?她想让你……不,我们这里完全不是在谈"想"。不,但前提是分开的。前提完全是分开的。我们在分别看每一个的含义。好,所以这个,含义是如果她意识到了,那么你不会被抓。如果你挠她的方式不对,你活该被抓。好,这里就有"活该"的问题了。所以结论是,如果她真的想让你挠她,而且你用了错误的方式……方式,那么你活该被抓。所以这个小可怜其实渴望你去挠她,而当你真的去挠她时,她所做的却是抓你。嗯,为什么会这样呢?因为你用了错误的方式。我们说对了吗?我现在要让你闭嘴了。

[段 47]

Okay, I don’t want to leave on a note of confusion. 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 went, ugh, didn’t you? Okay. Well, I said we were going to set it out logic book style. All we’re going to do is identify the argument. We’re going to analyze the argument, reveal its structure. So what we’ve done is we’ve taken the argument, We identified the conclusion of the argument. We all did that fairly easily. We identified each premise. We all did that fairly easily. Yes? Okay. We looked for suppressed premises, but I told you there weren’t any, so we didn’t bother with that one. Then we went through each premise and we removed inconsistent terms, cross-references, and irrelevancies and revealed the argument, which might be a very bad argument for all we know, but we revealed the argument that was there. What we didn’t do is try and impose the argument we would have made because it would have been a better one on the argument that we were trying to analyse. Are you with me? So all we’ve done is revealed the arguments here, we’ve revealed the structure, we’ve even got it down to P’s, Q’s, R’s and S’s. Now what you should do for next week is take one of the arguments that you found this week and try and do that and an awful lot of that’s going to be removing irrelevancies, cross-references and things like that, and adding suppressed premises.

[译文 47]

好的，我不想在一种困惑的氛围中结束。重要的是，我们今天所做的就是：拿出一个你们都看过的论证，你们看到它的时候，是不是觉得"呃"，对吧？好的。我说我们要按照逻辑书的方式来梳理它。我们要做的就是识别这个论证。我们要分析这个论证，揭示它的结构。所以我们做的就是：拿出了一个论证，我们识别了这个论证的结论。我们都相当轻松地完成了这一步。我们识别了每一个前提。我们也都相当轻松地完成了这一步，对吧？好的。我们寻找了被省略的前提，但我告诉过你们没有，所以那一步我们就没做。然后我们逐条检视了每个前提，去掉了不一致的用语、交叉引用和无关内容，揭示出了这个论证——就我们目前所知，它可能是一个非常糟糕的论证——但我们揭示出了实际存在的那个论证。我们没有做的是：试图把我们本来会构建的、可能更好的论证，强加在我们正在分析的论证之上。听懂了吗？所以我们所做的只是揭示了这里的论证，揭示了它的结构，我们甚至把它简化成了 P、Q、R、S 这样的符号。下周你们要做的，就是拿一个你们这周找到的论证，试着也这样做一遍——其中大量的工作会是去除无关内容、交叉引用之类的东西，并补充被省略的前提。

[段 48]

But it’ll give you practice in doing it. And don’t forget, this is the important thing, you can apply this methodology either to somebody else’s arguments, which is what we’ve been doing here, and what you will do if you look at arguments from the newspaper, or you can apply it to your own arguments. And you think of something for which you often argue, climate change or something like that or I don’t know what’s that okay that’s a good one that’ll do anyway find something for which you like to argue in the pub write down your conclusion and write down your premises and try and make the argument the argument you actually give so that then when we start evaluating arguments we can look at it but you will have identified your own argument and set it out logic book style because people’slogic book style. Because people often don’t do that with their own arguments and therefore don’t see that they’re missing out a huge premise or that this is happening or that’s happening or whatever. Okay, so your homework for this week, either take the arguments you found last week and set them out logic book style or choose a claim you’d like to make and see if you can set it out as an argument logic book style. Okay? Cool, I’m exhausted. Thank you.

[译文 48]

但这会让你们得到练习。别忘了，重要的是，你们既可以把这种方法应用到别人的论证上——也就是我们今天一直在做的，以及你们看报纸上的论证时会做的——也可以应用到你们自己的论证上。你们想一个你们经常为之争论的事情，比如气候变化之类的，或者别的什么都可以——好吧，那就用气候变化这个——总之找一个你们喜欢在酒吧里争论的话题，写下你们的结论，写下你们的前提，并尽量把你们实际给出的那个论证写出来。这样当我们开始评估论证时，我们就可以看它了，而你们也已经识别出了自己的论证，并按照逻辑书的方式把它梳理出来。因为人们通常不会对自己的论证这样做，因此看不到自己遗漏了一个巨大的前提，或者没有意识到这个、那个问题，诸如此类。好的，所以这周你们的作业是：要么把上周找到的论证按照逻辑书的方式梳理出来，要么选一个你想提出的主张，看看你能不能把它梳理成一个按照逻辑书方式的论证。明白了吗？好的，太棒了，我累坏了。谢谢大家。