跟讀練習: bassham ch3pt1 - 通過影片學習英語口語

選擇練習模式

每種模式都會開啟全屏練習室。

124 句

如果句子過短或過長，請點選 Edit 進行調整。

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.

下載應用

流利口語所需的一切

AI 發音評分逐句打分

音標練習掌握每個音

詞彙學習建立你的詞庫

詞彙遊戲邊玩邊學

掃碼

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

FOR YOU

為什麼用這個影片練習口語？

想通過看YouTube學英語提升口語？這個影片太適合了！它用清晰的邏輯講解，語速適中，還自帶“思考過程”，特別適合英語影子跟讀。跟著練不僅能熟悉學術類表達，還能培養邊聽邊理解的能力。比如影片裡區分演繹和歸納推理的部分，結構明確，重複度高，是shadow speech的好素材——既能練發音，又能學邏輯思維，一舉兩得！

語境中的語法與表達

影片裡有不少實用結構，快記下來：

“If...then...”條件句：比如“如果月亮是綠乳酪做的，那麼你下次考試會滿分”。這種虛擬語氣的結構在辯論或假設場景中超常用，影子跟讀時要注意重音在“if”後的假設部分。
“Therefore”結論句：用來總結推理結果，影片中多次出現。跟讀時要注意語調上揚，突出結論的必然性。
“In order to...you should...”建議句：講解邏輯時常用，比如“為了評估論證，你應該問兩個問題”。這種結構能讓表達更有條理，適合日常溝通或演講。

發音陷阱要注意

影片裡有些單詞容易讀錯，跟練時別踩坑：

“Deductive”：重音在第二個音節，別讀成“de-DUC-tive”。可以用shadowing site慢速跟讀，糾正發音。
“Necessarily”：中間的“ss”要發成濁子音，別讀得太生硬。影子跟讀時注意連貫，避免卡殼。
“Premises”：複數形式的“es”發輕音，別讀成“premise-iz”。多聽幾遍影片，模仿 native speaker 的弱化處理。

用好這些技巧，結合shadowspeaks的練習方法，你的口語會越來越流暢！趕緊開啟影片，開始影子跟讀吧！

影片中的語法

說話人最常用的結構，並附上影片中的原話：

結構	影片中的用法
被動語態 be + 過去分詞 — 強調發生了什麼，而不是誰做的	is intended · is made · are called
現在完成時 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去發生但與現在仍有關聯的事	you've gotten · has worn · they've covered
定語從句 who / which + 從句 — 補充說明人或事物	definition, which is · reasoning, which are

什麼是跟讀法？

跟讀法 (Shadowing) 是一種有科學依據的語言學習技巧，最初開發用於專業口譯員的培訓，並由多語言者Alexander Arguelles博士普及。這個方法簡單而強大：您在聽英語母語原聲的同時立即大聲重複——就像是一個延遲1-2秒緊跟說話者的影子。與被動聽力或語法練習不同，跟讀法強迫您的大腦和口腔肌肉同時處理並模模擬實的講話模式。研究表明它能顯著提高發音準確性，語調，節奏，連讀，聽力理解和口語流利度——使其成為雅思口語備考和真實英語交流最有效的方法之一。

影子跟讀法: 閱讀完整分步指南 →

跟讀練習: bassham ch3pt1 - 通過影片學習英語口語

選擇練習模式

下載應用

推薦影片

Mes arguments philosophiques préférés

Cambridge 16, Test 1 Listening audios with an answer key

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

Video

Critical Thinking Lecture: an introduction to critical thinking

My 10 Best Idioms for IELTS Speaking

CAE2 O TEST 2 PART 3

CELPIP Speaking Practice | Comparing and Persuading

RE2 Unit 11B

IELTS listening actual test Part 3: organising a debate (answer+ transcript)

How to write a good essay: Paraphrasing the question

"Trả lời mọi bài Speaking PART 2 với Model subjects!"

為什麼用這個影片練習口語？

語境中的語法與表達

發音陷阱要注意

影片中的語法

什麼是跟讀法？