It's a valid argument but it won't ever going to persuade you.
这是有效论点，但是这不会说服你。
So if we see the conclusion of a valid argument is false what do you know? A little bit longer.
如果我们看到有效论点的结论为假，你们知道什么？有一点长。
Actually a valid argument doesn't have true premises and true conclusion what is a valid argument?
实际上一个有效论点没有真前提和真结论，什么是有效论点呢？
Inductive grounds as well. Here this is observation isn't it and do we have a valid argument here?
也是归纳的基础，这里是观察，不是吗？，我们有一个有效地论点？
So it's a valid argument but has false premises. Okay what about if it is an invalid argument with false premises.
这是个有效的论点但是有假前提，如果是无效论点有假前提呢？
But if we put this together for a valid argument we get that is known to be false, so we know either one of these got to be false.
但是如果我们一起放出这个，作为有效论点，我们知道的就为假，所以我们知道两者中的一个为假。
If we can show the conclusion of a valid argument - put your hand up-if we can show the conclusion of a valid argument is false what do we know?
如果我们可以展示有效论点的结论-，举手，如果我们可以展示，有效论点的结论为假，我们知道什么？
That's right. So if you have a valid argument a deductively valid argument in which the conclusion is false then you know one of the premises must be false.
对，所以如果论点有效，一个演绎的有效论点中结论是假的，你就知道前提中有一项是假的。
And as soon as you understand that and as soon as you stop thinking of a valid argument having true premises and true conclusion you will see what's going on here.
只要你们明白,只要停止思考有效论点有,真前提和真结论，你们就明白了。
When executing the script containing getopt, named opttest, using a valid argument of -x-or --xxxxx, getopt recognizes the switch and executes the code within the case switch
在执行包含getopt（称为opttest）的脚本时，如果在 -x 或 --xxxxx 中使用有效的参数，getopt 会识别出开关并执行 case 开关中的代码
So you see that isn't a valid argument the reason because is that the premise-it doesn't matter how true the premise is, it's completely irrelevant to the conclusion isn't it?
所以你们看到这不是有效论点，因为前提，没关系，前提有多真，完全与结论无关，不是吗？
Supporters of each candidate have a valid argument to make, but shouldn't they have the benefit of being able to consider postseason performance in making their determination?
每位候选人的支持者们为了各自的偶像相互之间争论不休，既然这样他们为什么不将季后赛各人的表现考虑在内呢？
So if you negate that conclusion and took away the therefore, if you negated that conclusion the set would be inconsistent wouldn't it? And that shows you that that's a valid argument.
如果你否认结论，把所以拿掉，那么，如果你否认结论，这就不一致了，不是吗？这显示这是一个有效论点。
A good deductive argument is sound if and only if it's both valid and has true premises.
一个好的演绎论点是完好的，如果且仅如果这些都有效，并且前提为真。
Don't shout out your answer so is the argument valid if we got true premises and a true conclusion.
不要喊出来，所以这个论点有效，如果我们有真前提和真结论。
What I am claiming here is that if this is consistent then the original argument must have been a valid.
我这里说的是，如果这是一致的，那么原论点肯定有效。
Do you see how that is-if that's a deductively valid argument it in the virtue of the meaning of the word wrong. Isn't it?
你们明白，如果那是一个演绎有效的论点，它是通过错误这个词的意思，不是吗？
And that's what tells you whether the argument is valid or not So this is a deductively valid argument and this is a fallacy.
这是他告诉你结论是否有效，这是演绎有效的论点，这是一个谬论。
So circular argument is always valid and what tells you is that there got to be more to a good argument than validity.
所以循环论点都有效，告诉你们，好论点，比为真有更多要有的。
So the fallacy of fast talking, and the list of fallacies are down there just for you amusement Okay here's a fallacy, well deductively valid argument and here's a fallacy that looks like it.
快速谈话的谬论，谬论的清单是供你们娱乐的，这里有个谬论，演绎的有效论点，有谬论看起来像。
Could this argument be valid say yes - as a matter of fact this argument must be valid.
这个论点有效，说对-，实际上这个论点肯定有效。
Circular premises are always valid and some circular arguments like this one is sound - that doesn't make them good. There is more to a valid - sorry - good argument then just soundness.
循环前提都有效，循环论点都完好，这没使它们更好，这更有效，抱歉-，好论点只是完好。
But I don't want it to be persuasive because of a fallacy I actually want it to be a good argument as well, so I want it to be sound and valid.
但是我不想让他因为一些谬论更加有说服力，我实际上想让它成为更好的论点，所以我想让他完好有效。
The only that that is important now is that you understand what a deductively valid argument is. That it is truth preserving, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true.
现在唯一重要的是你们要理解，什么事演绎的有效论点，也就是真理保留，如果前提是真的，结论必定是真的。
So again we have a deductively valid argument but it's not deductively valid in actually we're a lot further on in modal logical then we are in deontic logic.
所以我们有一个演绎的有效论点,但是这不是演绎有效的,实际上我们模态逻辑有很多要讲的,然后我们再讲道义逻辑。
Is the argument in favor of promoting diversity a valid one?
这样的争论是不是倾向于把推行多样化变成合理的呢？
This is a deductively valid argument and its truth preserving and therefore it is very, very useful.
这是个演绎的有效论点，保留了真理，所以非常有用。
Now that looks like a deductively valid argument doesn't it?
这看起来像演绎有效的论点，不是吗？
So it's a sufficient condition for an argument being valid that there is no possible situation where the premises are true and the conclusion false. And that's a necessary condition too.
所以这对于论点有效性是充分条件，没有可能前提为真，结论为假，这是必要条件。
Here's a second example of begging the question, in which a dubious premise which is needed to make the argument valid is completely ignored: "Murder is morally wrong."
第二个例子，在这里令人怀疑的、结论所需要的前提，被忽略了。
应用推荐