シャドーイング練習: bassham ch3pt1 - 動画で英語スピーキングを学ぶ
レッスンを作成中...
1
Hi everybody, this is part one of the lecture to accompany chapter three in your textbook.
2
Please carefully read chapter three as there are a lot of great examples
3
and illustrations that will help you understand the material and I simply don't have time to address them in this lecture.
4
Okay, let's learn how to distinguish between deductive and inductive reasoning.
5
In the last chapter, you learned what arguments are and how to distinguish them from non -arguments.
6
You know that an argument contains at least two statements, and that one of the statements, the conclusion, is intended to be supported or proven by the other statements.
7
Now, we're going to focus solely on how to tell a good argument from a bad one.
8
In order to evaluate any argument, you should always ask yourself two key questions about that argument.
9
The first question is: Do the premises provide good reasons to accept the conclusion?
10
And the second question is, are the premises true?
11
Now, as strange as this may seem to you, the answer to the last question has absolutely nothing to do with the answer to the first question.
12
That's right.
13
Logic and truth are two entirely different things.
14
Just because something is logical, that doesn't make it true.
15
For right now, I want you to put your ideas about what is true aside
16
and simply focus on logic and the structure of arguments.
17
We will be discussing truth.
18
We're not going to ignore it entirely, but you need to understand the concept of good reasons in order to determine
19
if an argument follows the correct logical structure or not.
20
Let me see if I can make this concept a little clearer for you.
21
Here's an argument.
22
If the moon is made of green cheese, then you will score perfectly on the next exam.
23
The moon is made of green cheese.
24
Therefore, you will score perfectly on the next exam.
25
Okay, let's look closely at this argument.
26
It's made up of two premises and a conclusion.
27
The first premise is a conditional statement.
28
Remember that you can use those in arguments.
29
The second premise is saying that the antecedent of the first statement is true.
30
So, since in a conditional statement, if one thing is the case, then the second thing is also the case, the conclusion makes sense.
31
Obviously, neither of these premises are true.
32
Nevertheless, they provide what are called good reasons to accept the conclusion, because if they were true,
33
then the conclusion would also be true.
34
Good reasons aren't necessarily true reasons.
35
This is something you need to wrap your mind around when looking at arguments.
36
The premises don't need to be true for the argument to be structured correctly.
37
So hopefully for the moment, at least, you've gotten the idea that truth and logic are not the same thing.
38
And right now, we're mostly concerned with logic.
39
Again, we're going to add truth back into the discussion later, so don't freak out.
40
It's all going to be fine.
41
The next thing you need to understand is that there are two basic types of argument: deductive argument and inductive argument.
42
In order to really evaluate an argument, you need to know what kind of argument you're looking at.
43
They are very different, and you would use different standards to evaluate them.
44
Deductive arguments are tempting to prove that their conclusions are correct by using rigorous logic.
45
They are leading you to one and only one conclusion.
46
In this example, if the President lives in the White House, then the President lives in Washington, D .C.
47
The President lives in the White House, therefore the President lives in Washington, D .C.
48
The only conclusion that you can draw is that indeed the President lives in Washington, D .C.
49
follows necessarily from the premises.
50
Based on them, that's the only conclusion that you can come to.
51
Inductive arguments, on the other hand, are not quite so precise.
52
Inductive reasoning comes to a potentially likely, probable, or possible conclusion based on their premises.
53
In this example, "So far, every class our professor has worn jeans.
54
Therefore, next class our professor will probably wear jeans."
55
The person is arguing that because the professor has worn jeans to every class so far, it's very likely the professor will do it the next class.
56
Is the arguer absolutely sure that the professor will wear jeans?
57
No, but they've covered their bases by saying probably.
58
Even if they didn't say probably, they still know that something else might happen.
59
But they're coming to their conclusion based on pretty good evidence.
60
It's happened every time so far.
61
nice as deductive reasoning.
62
So how can you tell whether you're looking at a deductive argument or an inductive one?
63
Well, there are several ways.
64
First, just like there are certain indicator words that can help you distinguish between the premises and conclusion of an argument,
65
there are also indicator words that can help you determine whether the argument is deductive or inductive.
66
Because deductive reasoning is more precise, here are some indicator words that point to a deductive argument.
67
Certainly, definitely, this entails that, or conclusively, There are other ones, of course, but these are some of the most common.
68
Because inductive reasoning is more general and not as precise, words like probably, likely, one would expect,
69
the odds are, and reasonable to assume are more likely to be found in them.
70
However, as I've said before about indicator words, they are not perfect.
71
They may not be present or they might be used incorrectly, as in a speaker saying "it is certain that"
72
when really it's not certain and he should have used something like "it's probably true that" or something like that.
73
Another way to determine whether it's deductive or inductive is through the strict necessity test.
74
An argument's conclusion either follows with strict logical necessity from its premises or it does not.
75
If it does, it should be treated as a deductive argument.
76
If it doesn't, then it's most likely inductive.
77
Here's an example.
78
Alan is a father, therefore Alan is a male.
79
This is deductive.
80
It's actually an argument by definition, which is a form of deductive argument.
81
The conclusion that Alan is a male follows necessarily from the premise that Alan is a father, because fathers are by definition male.
82
Here's an inductive example.
83
Jill is a six -year -old girl.
84
Therefore, Jill cannot run a mile in one minute flat.
85
Now, why is this inductive?
86
Well, it's pretty much impossible for Jill or anyone else for that matter to run a mile in one minute flat.
87
But it still doesn't follow necessarily from the premise.
88
You know, being six years old really has no connection to running a mile and one minute flat or not.
89
And because it doesn't follow from the premise, this is an inductive argument.
90
Um, A third way to tell deductive from inductive arguments is to look to see if the argument follows a common pattern.
91
Arguments tend to follow characteristic telltale patterns of reasoning, which are different in deductive and inductive arguments.
92
Here's an example of a pattern of reasoning that is used in deductive arguments: if P, then Q.
93
P, therefore Q.
94
This is called the modus ponens pattern.
95
Here's an example: if George is from Norway, then George is Scandinavian.
96
George is from Norway.
97
Therefore, George is Scandinavian.
98
There are lots of different patterns for both inductive and deductive arguments, and we're going to look at them shortly.
99
And finally, the principle of charity test.
100
Now, just like in chapter two, when I said that if you're not sure whether someone is putting forth an argument or not, but if they are, it's a bad argument,
101
assume that they are just putting forth an explanation.
102
In this case, if you just can't tell what kind of argument it is, but if it's a deductive argument, then it's a bad one,
103
you might want to assume that it's an inductive argument that does not need to be as precise as a deductive one.
104
In this example, Andy told me that he ate a at Maxine's yesterday, but it burned down a month ago.
105
It is certain that he was either lying or mistaken.
106
Now the arguer uses the indicator word certain, but does not make this a deductive argument.
107
No. Plus, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise.
108
Could there be other reasons why Andy said he ate vaccines?
109
Sure, it could have been rebuilt or reopened somewhere else, so you should assume that this is an inductive argument.
110
Let's sum up how to distinguish deductive arguments from inductive ones.
111
First, if a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, then the argument is deductive.
112
If the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises, it should be treated as inductive unless the language
113
or context makes it clear that the arguer intended for it to be deductive
114
or it has a typically deductive pattern of reasoning.
115
And as I said, we're going to talk about those patterns in part two.
116
If it has a typically deductive pattern of reasoning, it should be treated as deductive,
117
unless there's clear evidence that the arguer intended for it to be inductive.
118
Now, if it has a typically inductive pattern of reasoning, it should be treated as inductive,
119
unless there's clear evidence that the arguer intended for it to be deductive.
120
And of course we have indicator words that might help,
121
but they are often used loosely or improperly or maybe not even there at all and,
122
when in doubt, use the principle of charity to interpret the argument in the way most favorable to the arguer.
123
This is the end of Part 1 of the lecture on Chapter 3.
124
Please move on to Part 2.
✨ おすすめ動画
C1252 文
Mes arguments philosophiques préférés
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
C11
307 文
Cambridge 16 Listening Test 1 with Answer | #english #ieltslistening
IELTS PrepCambridge Exam PrepUniversity Students
B21
103 文
10 Essential Phrases for IELTS Speaking
IELTS PrepCambridge Exam PrepHigh School Students
B215
36 文
Bạn hiểu được bao nhiêu % khi clip chưa được sub | luyện nghe tiếng anh cùng imleafsun
IELTS PrepCambridge Exam PrepUniversity Students
C13
152 文
Video
IELTS PrepBusiness EnglishUniversity Students
B23
79 文
The Official Cambridge Guide to IELTS unit 6 attitude and opinion
IELTS PrepCambridge Exam PrepUniversity Students
C14
103 文
Critical Thinking Lecture: an introduction to critical thinking
IELTS PrepBusiness EnglishUniversity Students
C11
125 文
CAE TEST2 PART1
TOEFL PrepCambridge Exam PrepUniversity Students
C11
75 文
(Level- Medium) IELTS Actual listening Economics and Trust
IELTS PrepUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B23
295 文
CELPIP Speaking Practice | Comparing and Persuading
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepInterview English
B21
78 文
TOEFL 2026 Complete a Sentence Task: Step-by-Step Strategies and Practice (Part 1)
TOEFL PrepUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B26
67 文
IELTS Part 3 Questions and Answers about Globalization
IELTS PrepCambridge Exam PrepUniversity Students
この動画は誰に向けて作られたのか？
英語の論理学や議論の構造を学びたい中級レベルの学習者に最適です。特に、推論のタイプ（演繹的推論と帰納的推論）を区別し、議論の評価方法を理解したい人に役立ちます。日常的な会話だけでなく、論理的な文章やスピーチを組み立てる能力を向上させたい方にもおすすめです。
覚えておきたいフレーズとイディオム
- wrap your mind around：「頭で理解する」「納得する」。例："Good reasons aren't necessarily true reasons. This is something you need to wrap your mind around."（「良い理由は必ずしも真実の理由ではない。これは頭で理解する必要があることだ」）
- rigorous logic：「厳密な論理」。例："Deductive arguments are tempting to prove that their conclusions are correct by using rigorous logic."（「演繹的推論は厳密な論理を使って結論の正しさを証明しようとする」）
- follows necessarily：「必然的に従う」。例："The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises."（「結論は前提から必然的に従う」）
アクセントを正しくするコツ
この動画のスピーカーは論理的な説明をする際、重要な用語やフレーズを強調するためにアクセントを置いています。例えば、"deductive"や"inductive"といったキーワードは語尾を強調し、"good reasons"や"rigorous logic"は二つ目の単語にアクセントを置いています。shadow speech（シャドーイング）の練習時には、これらの強調部分を注意深く聴き取り、同じリズムとアクセントで繰り返すことが重要です。特に条件文（"If...then..."）の構造では、"if"節を軽く、"then"節を強く発音することで、論理的な流れを表現できます。英語シャドーイングの際は、スピーカーのポーズや抑揚も再現してみてください。これにより、論理的な議論を自然に話す能力が向上します。また、shadowing siteなどを利用して、繰り返し練習することで、正しいアクセントとリズムを身につけることができます。
この動画の文法
話し手がよく使っている文型を、動画の実際の表現とともに紹介します。
| 文型 | 動画での表現 |
|---|---|
| 受動態 be + 過去分詞 — 誰がするかより、何が起きるかに焦点を当てる | is intended · is made · are called |
| 現在完了形 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去の出来事が今も関係している | you've gotten · has worn · they've covered |
| 関係詞節 who / which + 節 — 人や物について情報を加える | definition, which is · reasoning, which are |
シャドーイングとは？英語上達に効果的な理由
シャドーイング（Shadowing）は、もともとプロの通訳者養成プログラムで開発された言語学習法で、多言語習得者として知られるDr. Alexander Arguelles によって広く普及されました。方法はシンプルですが非常に効果的：ネイティブスピーカーの英語を聞きながら、1〜2秒の遅延で声に出してすぐに繰り返す——まるで「影（shadow）」のように話者を追いかけます。文法ドリルや受動的なリスニングと異なり、シャドーイングは脳と口の筋肉が同時にリアルタイムで英語を処理・再現することを強制します。研究により、発音精度、抑揚、リズム、連音、リスニング力、そして会話の流暢さが大幅に向上することが確認されています。IELTSスピーキング対策や自然な英語コミュニケーションを目指す方に特におすすめです。