쉐도잉 연습: bassham ch3pt1 - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기
레슨 만드는 중...
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.
✨ 추천 영상
C1252 문장
Mes arguments philosophiques préférés
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
C11
307 문장
Cambridge 16 Listening Test 1 with Answer | #english #ieltslistening
IELTS PrepCambridge Exam PrepUniversity Students
B215
36 문장
Bạn hiểu được bao nhiêu % khi clip chưa được sub | luyện nghe tiếng anh cùng imleafsun
IELTS PrepCambridge Exam PrepUniversity Students
C13
152 문장
Video
IELTS PrepBusiness EnglishUniversity Students
B21
103 문장
10 Essential Phrases for IELTS Speaking
IELTS PrepCambridge Exam PrepHigh School Students
B23
79 문장
The Official Cambridge Guide to IELTS unit 6 attitude and opinion
IELTS PrepCambridge Exam PrepUniversity Students
C14
103 문장
Critical Thinking Lecture: an introduction to critical thinking
IELTS PrepBusiness EnglishUniversity Students
C11
125 문장
CAE TEST2 PART1
TOEFL PrepCambridge Exam PrepUniversity Students
C11
75 문장
(Level- Medium) IELTS Actual listening Economics and Trust
IELTS PrepUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B23
295 문장
CELPIP Speaking Practice | Comparing and Persuading
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepInterview English
B21
78 문장
TOEFL 2026 Complete a Sentence Task: Step-by-Step Strategies and Practice (Part 1)
TOEFL PrepUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B26
67 문장
IELTS Part 3 Questions and Answers about Globalization
IELTS PrepCambridge Exam PrepUniversity Students
강의의 맥락과 배경
이 비디오는 논리학 챕터의 일부로, 연역적 추론과 귀납적 추론의 차이를 설명합니다. 논쟁의 구조와 논리적 유효성, 진실과의 관계를 다루며, 영어로 논리적 사고를 표현하는 데 도움이 되는 내용입니다. 특히 IELTS 스피킹과 같은 시험에서 논리적 발화를 준비하거나, 일상 영어 회화 연습에서 명확한 주장을 하는 데 유용한 개념을 다룹니다.
일상 커뮤니케이션에 유용한 5가지 표현
- provide good reasons to accept: "결론을 받아들이기 위한 좋은 이유를 제공하다" – 논쟁에서 자주 사용되는 표현입니다. 예: "These data provide good reasons to accept the theory."
- wrap your mind around: "머리에 넣다, 이해하다" – 복잡한 개념을 이해할 때 쓰입니다. 예: "It's hard to wrap my mind around quantum physics."
- follow necessarily from: "필연적으로 따르다" – 논리적 결론을 나타냅니다. 예: "The result follows necessarily from the premises."
- rigorous logic: "엄격한 논리" – 논쟁의 강도를 강조할 때 사용합니다. 예: "He used rigorous logic to prove his point."
- put aside: "내려놓다, 잠시 잊다" – 다른 것을 우선할 때 쓰입니다. 예: "Let's put aside our differences and focus on the problem."
Shadowing 연습 가이드: 단계별 방법
이 비디오는 논리적 설명이 많아 발음 뿐 아니라 문장 구조를 이해하는 데 도움이 됩니다. shadowspeak 또는 shadow speak 연습을 할 때는 다음 단계를 따라보세요:
- 청취와 이해: 비디오를 한 번 듣고 전체 내용을 파악합니다. "논리와 진실의 차이" "연역적 추론의 특징" 등 주요 포인트를 메모합니다.
- 단어와 구문 반복: 위에서 추출한 표현들을 반복하여 발음과 의미를 익힙니다. "wrap your mind around"와 같이 어려운 구문은 천천히 발음하며 연습합니다.
- 문장 단위 shadowing: 비디오를 문장 단위로 멈추고, 즉시 따라합니다. "If the moon is made of green cheese, then you will score perfectly on the next exam."와 같은 긴 문장은 구역별로 나눠 연습합니다.
- 흐름과 강세: 화자가 강조하는 부분(예: "good reasons", "necessarily")의 강세와 억양을 따라합니다. 논리적 강조를 통해 영어 회화의 자연스러움을 익힙니다.
- 전체 연습: 비디오를 멈추지 않고 전체를 따라합니다. 속도와 리듬을 맞추며, 논리적 흐름을 유지하면서 발음을 정확하게 하는 것을 목표로 합니다.
이 단계를 반복하면 shadowspeaks 연습이 더 효과적이며, IELTS 스피킹에서 논리적 발화 능력도 향상됩니다. 실수해도 괜찮아요 – 연습이 실력을 만듭니다!
이 영상의 문법
화자가 가장 많이 쓰는 문형을 영상 속 실제 표현과 함께 정리했습니다.
| 문형 | 영상 속 표현 |
|---|---|
| 수동태 be + 과거분사 — 누가 하는지보다 무슨 일이 일어나는지에 초점 | is intended · is made · are called |
| 현재완료 have/has + 과거분사 — 과거의 일이 지금도 관련이 있을 때 | you've gotten · has worn · they've covered |
| 관계절 who / which + 절 — 사람이나 사물에 대한 추가 정보 | definition, which is · reasoning, which are |
쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법
쉐도잉(Shadowing)은 원래 전문 통역사 훈련을 위해 개발된 언어 학습 기법으로, 다언어 학자인 Dr. Alexander Arguelles에 의해 대중화된 방법입니다. 핵심 원리는 간단하지만 매우 강력합니다: 원어민의 영어를 들으면서 1~2초의 짧은 지연으로 즉시 소리 내어 따라 말하는 것——마치 '그림자(shadow)'처럼 화자를 따라가는 것입니다. 문법 공부나 수동적인 청취와 달리, 쉐도잉은 뇌와 입 근육이 동시에 실시간으로 영어를 처리하고 재현하도록 훈련합니다. 연구에 따르면 이 방법은 발음 정확도, 억양, 리듬, 연음, 청취력, 말하기 유창성을 크게 향상시킵니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비와 자연스러운 영어 소통을 원하는 분들에게 특히 효과적입니다.