Практика Shadowing: bassham ch3pt1 - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

Hi everybody, this is part one of the lecture to accompany chapter three in your textbook.

Please carefully read chapter three as there are a lot of great examples

and illustrations that will help you understand the material and I simply don't have time to address them in this lecture.

Okay, let's learn how to distinguish between deductive and inductive reasoning.

In the last chapter, you learned what arguments are and how to distinguish them from non -arguments.

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.

Now, we're going to focus solely on how to tell a good argument from a bad one.

In order to evaluate any argument, you should always ask yourself two key questions about that argument.

The first question is: Do the premises provide good reasons to accept the conclusion?

And the second question is, are the premises true?

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.

That's right.

Logic and truth are two entirely different things.

Just because something is logical, that doesn't make it true.

For right now, I want you to put your ideas about what is true aside

and simply focus on logic and the structure of arguments.

We will be discussing truth.

We're not going to ignore it entirely, but you need to understand the concept of good reasons in order to determine

if an argument follows the correct logical structure or not.

Let me see if I can make this concept a little clearer for you.

Here's an argument.

If the moon is made of green cheese, then you will score perfectly on the next exam.

The moon is made of green cheese.

Therefore, you will score perfectly on the next exam.

Okay, let's look closely at this argument.

It's made up of two premises and a conclusion.

The first premise is a conditional statement.

Remember that you can use those in arguments.

The second premise is saying that the antecedent of the first statement is true.

So, since in a conditional statement, if one thing is the case, then the second thing is also the case, the conclusion makes sense.

Obviously, neither of these premises are true.

Nevertheless, they provide what are called good reasons to accept the conclusion, because if they were true,

then the conclusion would also be true.

Good reasons aren't necessarily true reasons.

This is something you need to wrap your mind around when looking at arguments.

The premises don't need to be true for the argument to be structured correctly.

So hopefully for the moment, at least, you've gotten the idea that truth and logic are not the same thing.

And right now, we're mostly concerned with logic.

Again, we're going to add truth back into the discussion later, so don't freak out.

It's all going to be fine.

The next thing you need to understand is that there are two basic types of argument: deductive argument and inductive argument.

In order to really evaluate an argument, you need to know what kind of argument you're looking at.

They are very different, and you would use different standards to evaluate them.

Deductive arguments are tempting to prove that their conclusions are correct by using rigorous logic.

They are leading you to one and only one conclusion.

In this example, if the President lives in the White House, then the President lives in Washington, D .C.

The President lives in the White House, therefore the President lives in Washington, D .C.

The only conclusion that you can draw is that indeed the President lives in Washington, D .C.

follows necessarily from the premises.

Based on them, that's the only conclusion that you can come to.

Inductive arguments, on the other hand, are not quite so precise.

Inductive reasoning comes to a potentially likely, probable, or possible conclusion based on their premises.

In this example, "So far, every class our professor has worn jeans.

Therefore, next class our professor will probably wear jeans."

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.

Is the arguer absolutely sure that the professor will wear jeans?

No, but they've covered their bases by saying probably.

Even if they didn't say probably, they still know that something else might happen.

But they're coming to their conclusion based on pretty good evidence.

It's happened every time so far.

nice as deductive reasoning.

So how can you tell whether you're looking at a deductive argument or an inductive one?

Well, there are several ways.

First, just like there are certain indicator words that can help you distinguish between the premises and conclusion of an argument,

there are also indicator words that can help you determine whether the argument is deductive or inductive.

Because deductive reasoning is more precise, here are some indicator words that point to a deductive argument.

Certainly, definitely, this entails that, or conclusively, There are other ones, of course, but these are some of the most common.

Because inductive reasoning is more general and not as precise, words like probably, likely, one would expect,

the odds are, and reasonable to assume are more likely to be found in them.

However, as I've said before about indicator words, they are not perfect.

They may not be present or they might be used incorrectly, as in a speaker saying "it is certain that"

when really it's not certain and he should have used something like "it's probably true that" or something like that.

Another way to determine whether it's deductive or inductive is through the strict necessity test.

An argument's conclusion either follows with strict logical necessity from its premises or it does not.

If it does, it should be treated as a deductive argument.

If it doesn't, then it's most likely inductive.

Here's an example.

Alan is a father, therefore Alan is a male.

This is deductive.

It's actually an argument by definition, which is a form of deductive argument.

The conclusion that Alan is a male follows necessarily from the premise that Alan is a father, because fathers are by definition male.

Here's an inductive example.

Jill is a six -year -old girl.

Therefore, Jill cannot run a mile in one minute flat.

Now, why is this inductive?

Well, it's pretty much impossible for Jill or anyone else for that matter to run a mile in one minute flat.

But it still doesn't follow necessarily from the premise.

You know, being six years old really has no connection to running a mile and one minute flat or not.

And because it doesn't follow from the premise, this is an inductive argument.

Um, A third way to tell deductive from inductive arguments is to look to see if the argument follows a common pattern.

Arguments tend to follow characteristic telltale patterns of reasoning, which are different in deductive and inductive arguments.

Here's an example of a pattern of reasoning that is used in deductive arguments: if P, then Q.

P, therefore Q.

This is called the modus ponens pattern.

Here's an example: if George is from Norway, then George is Scandinavian.

George is from Norway.

Therefore, George is Scandinavian.

There are lots of different patterns for both inductive and deductive arguments, and we're going to look at them shortly.

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.

✨ Рекомендуемое видео

252 предложений

Mes arguments philosophiques préférés

IELTS PrepTOEFL Prep+3

307 предложений

Cambridge 16 Listening Test 1 with Answer | #english #ieltslistening

IELTS PrepUniversity Students+2

36 предложений

Bạn hiểu được bao nhiêu % khi clip chưa được sub | luyện nghe tiếng anh cùng imleafsun

IELTS PrepUniversity Students+2

103 предложений

Что такое техника Shadowing?

Shadowing — это научно обоснованная техника изучения языка, изначально разработанная для подготовки профессиональных переводчиков и популяризированная полиглотом доктором Александром Аргуэльесом. Метод прост, но эффективен: вы слушаете аудио на английском от носителей языка и немедленно повторяете вслух — как тень, следующая за говорящим с задержкой в 1–2 секунды. В отличие от пассивного прослушивания или грамматических упражнений, Shadowing заставляет мозг и мышцы рта одновременно обрабатывать и воспроизводить реальные речевые паттерны. Исследования показывают, что это значительно улучшает точность произношения, интонацию, ритм, связную речь, понимание на слух и беглость речи — что делает его одним из самых эффективных методов для подготовки к IELTS Speaking и реального общения на английском.

Техника шедоуинга: читать полное пошаговое руководство →

Практика Shadowing: bassham ch3pt1 - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

Mes arguments philosophiques préférés

Cambridge 16 Listening Test 1 with Answer | #english #ieltslistening

Bạn hiểu được bao nhiêu % khi clip chưa được sub | luyện nghe tiếng anh cùng imleafsun

10 Essential Phrases for IELTS Speaking

Video

The Official Cambridge Guide to IELTS unit 6 attitude and opinion

Critical Thinking Lecture: an introduction to critical thinking

CAE TEST2 PART1

(Level- Medium) IELTS Actual listening Economics and Trust

How to Answer ANY IELTS Speaking Part 3 Question

CELPIP Speaking Practice | Comparing and Persuading

Grammar Lesson #1 - Tips to Improve Your Sentence Structure

Цели разговорной практики в этом видео

Банк фраз для повтора

Исправляем слабые места в речи

Что такое техника Shadowing?