It's a matter of inference, not just to any old explanation, but inference to the best explanation.

这是逻辑推论的结果,不是随便什么陈旧的解释,而是最佳解释的推论结果

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

What else is the flaw? Where's the flaw in this logic?

还有什么不对的地方，逻辑上还有什么错误？

麻省理工公开课 - 计算机科学及编程导论课程节选

Isn't there a kind of logical requirement that for something to be bad for you ? you've got to be around to receive that bad thing?

难道没有这样一种逻辑要求吗,如果有什么事物对你来说有坏处,你不是应该去接受那个有害的事物吗？

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

And when asked about the pain he caused his victims he responded, "What do I care? I'm not her," which is logically correct but, in a sense, inhuman.

当别人问他对受害者,造成的痛苦时，他回答时，“关我什么事？我又不是她”,从逻辑上说没错，但一点人性都没有。

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

It doesn't say anything logically contradictory about this view.

也不是说有什么,逻辑上与之矛盾。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

What's the point? Again, you can have things that are syntactically legal but not semantically meaningful, and static semantics is going to be a way of helping us decide what expressions, what pieces of code, actually have real meaning to it. All right?

重点是什么？重申，你可以有东西在语义结构的逻辑上有意义,但是在语义上无意义，而static语义,将是一个帮助我们,决定哪些表达，哪部分的代码实际上，有意义的途径，好么？

麻省理工公开课 - 计算机科学及编程导论课程节选