WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.350 --> 00:00:04.490 align:start position:0%
 
vegetables<00:00:01.350><c> are</c><00:00:01.650><c> bad</c><00:00:02.340><c> for</c><00:00:02.610><c> you</c><00:00:03.080><c> after</c><00:00:04.080><c> all</c><00:00:04.230><c> the</c>

00:00:04.490 --> 00:00:04.500 align:start position:0%
vegetables are bad for you after all the
 

00:00:04.500 --> 00:00:07.130 align:start position:0%
vegetables are bad for you after all the
dinosaurs<00:00:05.040><c> ate</c><00:00:05.279><c> plants</c><00:00:05.520><c> and</c><00:00:05.940><c> we</c><00:00:06.690><c> all</c><00:00:06.870><c> know</c>

00:00:07.130 --> 00:00:07.140 align:start position:0%
dinosaurs ate plants and we all know
 

00:00:07.140 --> 00:00:10.790 align:start position:0%
dinosaurs ate plants and we all know
what<00:00:07.500><c> happened</c><00:00:07.859><c> to</c><00:00:07.950><c> them</c><00:00:09.170><c> let's</c><00:00:10.170><c> pause</c><00:00:10.440><c> for</c><00:00:10.740><c> a</c>

00:00:10.790 --> 00:00:10.800 align:start position:0%
what happened to them let's pause for a
 

00:00:10.800 --> 00:00:13.490 align:start position:0%
what happened to them let's pause for a
moment<00:00:10.980><c> that</c><00:00:11.730><c> argument</c><00:00:12.240><c> was</c><00:00:12.420><c> ridiculous</c><00:00:13.230><c> and</c>

00:00:13.490 --> 00:00:13.500 align:start position:0%
moment that argument was ridiculous and
 

00:00:13.500 --> 00:00:15.799 align:start position:0%
moment that argument was ridiculous and
that's<00:00:14.009><c> because</c><00:00:14.429><c> it</c><00:00:14.580><c> contained</c><00:00:15.030><c> a</c><00:00:15.299><c> logical</c>

00:00:15.799 --> 00:00:15.809 align:start position:0%
that's because it contained a logical
 

00:00:15.809 --> 00:00:18.980 align:start position:0%
that's because it contained a logical
fallacy<00:00:16.020><c> a</c><00:00:16.760><c> logical</c><00:00:17.760><c> fallacy</c><00:00:18.240><c> is</c><00:00:18.420><c> any</c><00:00:18.570><c> kind</c><00:00:18.779><c> of</c>

00:00:18.980 --> 00:00:18.990 align:start position:0%
fallacy a logical fallacy is any kind of
 

00:00:18.990 --> 00:00:20.599 align:start position:0%
fallacy a logical fallacy is any kind of
error<00:00:19.199><c> in</c><00:00:19.439><c> reasoning</c><00:00:19.619><c> that</c><00:00:20.130><c> renders</c><00:00:20.490><c> an</c>

00:00:20.599 --> 00:00:20.609 align:start position:0%
error in reasoning that renders an
 

00:00:20.609 --> 00:00:22.759 align:start position:0%
error in reasoning that renders an
argument<00:00:21.029><c> invalid</c><00:00:21.270><c> they</c><00:00:22.260><c> can</c><00:00:22.439><c> involve</c>

00:00:22.759 --> 00:00:22.769 align:start position:0%
argument invalid they can involve
 

00:00:22.769 --> 00:00:25.790 align:start position:0%
argument invalid they can involve
distorting<00:00:23.460><c> or</c><00:00:23.580><c> manipulating</c><00:00:24.210><c> facts</c><00:00:24.800><c> drawing</c>

00:00:25.790 --> 00:00:25.800 align:start position:0%
distorting or manipulating facts drawing
 

00:00:25.800 --> 00:00:28.640 align:start position:0%
distorting or manipulating facts drawing
false<00:00:26.099><c> conclusions</c><00:00:26.840><c> or</c><00:00:27.840><c> distracting</c><00:00:28.529><c> you</c>

00:00:28.640 --> 00:00:28.650 align:start position:0%
false conclusions or distracting you
 

00:00:28.650 --> 00:00:31.910 align:start position:0%
false conclusions or distracting you
from<00:00:28.680><c> the</c><00:00:28.949><c> actual</c><00:00:29.369><c> issue</c><00:00:29.550><c> at</c><00:00:29.820><c> hand</c><00:00:30.439><c> in</c><00:00:31.439><c> theory</c>

00:00:31.910 --> 00:00:31.920 align:start position:0%
from the actual issue at hand in theory
 

00:00:31.920 --> 00:00:33.530 align:start position:0%
from the actual issue at hand in theory
it<00:00:32.070><c> seems</c><00:00:32.279><c> like</c><00:00:32.520><c> they'd</c><00:00:32.700><c> be</c><00:00:32.850><c> pretty</c><00:00:33.090><c> easy</c><00:00:33.270><c> to</c>

00:00:33.530 --> 00:00:33.540 align:start position:0%
it seems like they'd be pretty easy to
 

00:00:33.540 --> 00:00:36.100 align:start position:0%
it seems like they'd be pretty easy to
spot<00:00:33.750><c> but</c><00:00:34.440><c> this</c><00:00:34.710><c> isn't</c><00:00:34.920><c> always</c><00:00:35.190><c> the</c><00:00:35.340><c> case</c>

00:00:36.100 --> 00:00:36.110 align:start position:0%
spot but this isn't always the case
 

00:00:36.110 --> 00:00:38.930 align:start position:0%
spot but this isn't always the case
sometimes<00:00:37.110><c> logical</c><00:00:37.980><c> fallacies</c><00:00:38.460><c> are</c><00:00:38.489><c> used</c>

00:00:38.930 --> 00:00:38.940 align:start position:0%
sometimes logical fallacies are used
 

00:00:38.940 --> 00:00:41.209 align:start position:0%
sometimes logical fallacies are used
intentionally<00:00:39.329><c> to</c><00:00:39.930><c> try</c><00:00:40.170><c> and</c><00:00:40.290><c> win</c><00:00:40.440><c> a</c><00:00:40.469><c> debate</c><00:00:40.710><c> in</c>

00:00:41.209 --> 00:00:41.219 align:start position:0%
intentionally to try and win a debate in
 

00:00:41.219 --> 00:00:43.580 align:start position:0%
intentionally to try and win a debate in
these<00:00:42.000><c> cases</c><00:00:42.270><c> they're</c><00:00:42.719><c> often</c><00:00:43.050><c> presented</c><00:00:43.320><c> by</c>

00:00:43.580 --> 00:00:43.590 align:start position:0%
these cases they're often presented by
 

00:00:43.590 --> 00:00:45.290 align:start position:0%
these cases they're often presented by
the<00:00:43.649><c> speaker</c><00:00:44.129><c> with</c><00:00:44.399><c> a</c><00:00:44.430><c> certain</c><00:00:44.850><c> level</c><00:00:45.030><c> of</c>

00:00:45.290 --> 00:00:45.300 align:start position:0%
the speaker with a certain level of
 

00:00:45.300 --> 00:00:47.990 align:start position:0%
the speaker with a certain level of
confidence<00:00:45.840><c> and</c><00:00:46.170><c> in</c><00:00:46.800><c> doing</c><00:00:46.980><c> so</c><00:00:47.129><c> they're</c><00:00:47.760><c> more</c>

00:00:47.990 --> 00:00:48.000 align:start position:0%
confidence and in doing so they're more
 

00:00:48.000 --> 00:00:50.600 align:start position:0%
confidence and in doing so they're more
persuasive<00:00:48.450><c> if</c><00:00:48.870><c> they</c><00:00:49.739><c> sound</c><00:00:50.100><c> like</c><00:00:50.250><c> they</c><00:00:50.460><c> know</c>

00:00:50.600 --> 00:00:50.610 align:start position:0%
persuasive if they sound like they know
 

00:00:50.610 --> 00:00:52.310 align:start position:0%
persuasive if they sound like they know
what<00:00:50.760><c> they're</c><00:00:50.789><c> talking</c><00:00:51.270><c> about</c><00:00:51.360><c> we're</c><00:00:52.050><c> more</c>

00:00:52.310 --> 00:00:52.320 align:start position:0%
what they're talking about we're more
 

00:00:52.320 --> 00:00:54.139 align:start position:0%
what they're talking about we're more
likely<00:00:52.680><c> to</c><00:00:52.829><c> believe</c><00:00:52.949><c> them</c><00:00:53.280><c> even</c><00:00:53.879><c> if</c><00:00:54.000><c> their</c>

00:00:54.139 --> 00:00:54.149 align:start position:0%
likely to believe them even if their
 

00:00:54.149 --> 00:00:55.939 align:start position:0%
likely to believe them even if their
stance<00:00:54.449><c> doesn't</c><00:00:54.840><c> make</c><00:00:54.960><c> complete</c><00:00:55.379><c> logical</c>

00:00:55.939 --> 00:00:55.949 align:start position:0%
stance doesn't make complete logical
 

00:00:55.949 --> 00:00:59.240 align:start position:0%
stance doesn't make complete logical
sense<00:00:56.570><c> one</c><00:00:57.570><c> common</c><00:00:57.989><c> logical</c><00:00:58.379><c> fallacy</c><00:00:58.859><c> is</c><00:00:59.039><c> the</c>

00:00:59.240 --> 00:00:59.250 align:start position:0%
sense one common logical fallacy is the
 

00:00:59.250 --> 00:01:01.549 align:start position:0%
sense one common logical fallacy is the
false<00:00:59.489><c> cause</c><00:00:59.870><c> this</c><00:01:00.870><c> is</c><00:01:01.020><c> when</c><00:01:01.199><c> someone</c>

00:01:01.549 --> 00:01:01.559 align:start position:0%
false cause this is when someone
 

00:01:01.559 --> 00:01:03.139 align:start position:0%
false cause this is when someone
incorrectly<00:01:02.070><c> identifies</c><00:01:02.670><c> the</c><00:01:02.910><c> cause</c><00:01:03.120><c> of</c>

00:01:03.139 --> 00:01:03.149 align:start position:0%
incorrectly identifies the cause of
 

00:01:03.149 --> 00:01:06.410 align:start position:0%
incorrectly identifies the cause of
something<00:01:03.600><c> in</c><00:01:04.100><c> my</c><00:01:05.100><c> argument</c><00:01:05.610><c> I</c><00:01:05.760><c> stated</c><00:01:06.360><c> that</c>

00:01:06.410 --> 00:01:06.420 align:start position:0%
something in my argument I stated that
 

00:01:06.420 --> 00:01:08.570 align:start position:0%
something in my argument I stated that
the<00:01:06.540><c> dinosaurs</c><00:01:07.110><c> became</c><00:01:07.409><c> extinct</c><00:01:07.979><c> because</c>

00:01:08.570 --> 00:01:08.580 align:start position:0%
the dinosaurs became extinct because
 

00:01:08.580 --> 00:01:11.090 align:start position:0%
the dinosaurs became extinct because
they<00:01:08.729><c> ate</c><00:01:08.880><c> vegetables</c><00:01:09.350><c> now</c><00:01:10.350><c> while</c><00:01:10.619><c> these</c><00:01:10.799><c> two</c>

00:01:11.090 --> 00:01:11.100 align:start position:0%
they ate vegetables now while these two
 

00:01:11.100 --> 00:01:13.550 align:start position:0%
they ate vegetables now while these two
separate<00:01:11.520><c> things</c><00:01:11.760><c> did</c><00:01:12.000><c> happen</c><00:01:12.290><c> diet</c><00:01:13.290><c> of</c>

00:01:13.550 --> 00:01:13.560 align:start position:0%
separate things did happen diet of
 

00:01:13.560 --> 00:01:15.260 align:start position:0%
separate things did happen diet of
vegetables<00:01:14.040><c> was</c><00:01:14.250><c> not</c><00:01:14.400><c> the</c><00:01:14.549><c> cause</c><00:01:14.760><c> of</c><00:01:14.790><c> their</c>

00:01:15.260 --> 00:01:15.270 align:start position:0%
vegetables was not the cause of their
 

00:01:15.270 --> 00:01:17.749 align:start position:0%
vegetables was not the cause of their
extinction<00:01:16.040><c> maybe</c><00:01:17.040><c> you've</c><00:01:17.220><c> heard</c><00:01:17.400><c> false</c>

00:01:17.749 --> 00:01:17.759 align:start position:0%
extinction maybe you've heard false
 

00:01:17.759 --> 00:01:19.700 align:start position:0%
extinction maybe you've heard false
cause<00:01:18.060><c> more</c><00:01:18.420><c> commonly</c><00:01:18.869><c> represented</c><00:01:19.530><c> by</c><00:01:19.650><c> the</c>

00:01:19.700 --> 00:01:19.710 align:start position:0%
cause more commonly represented by the
 

00:01:19.710 --> 00:01:21.770 align:start position:0%
cause more commonly represented by the
phrase<00:01:20.240><c> correlation</c><00:01:21.240><c> does</c><00:01:21.450><c> not</c><00:01:21.479><c> equal</c>

00:01:21.770 --> 00:01:21.780 align:start position:0%
phrase correlation does not equal
 

00:01:21.780 --> 00:01:24.440 align:start position:0%
phrase correlation does not equal
causation<00:01:22.460><c> meaning</c><00:01:23.460><c> that</c><00:01:23.580><c> just</c><00:01:23.640><c> because</c><00:01:24.150><c> two</c>

00:01:24.440 --> 00:01:24.450 align:start position:0%
causation meaning that just because two
 

00:01:24.450 --> 00:01:26.690 align:start position:0%
causation meaning that just because two
things<00:01:24.780><c> occurred</c><00:01:25.200><c> around</c><00:01:25.530><c> the</c><00:01:25.650><c> same</c><00:01:25.860><c> time</c><00:01:26.100><c> it</c>

00:01:26.690 --> 00:01:26.700 align:start position:0%
things occurred around the same time it
 

00:01:26.700 --> 00:01:29.319 align:start position:0%
things occurred around the same time it
doesn't<00:01:26.970><c> mean</c><00:01:27.180><c> that</c><00:01:27.240><c> one</c><00:01:27.630><c> caused</c><00:01:28.080><c> the</c><00:01:28.350><c> other</c><00:01:28.500><c> a</c>

00:01:29.319 --> 00:01:29.329 align:start position:0%
doesn't mean that one caused the other a
 

00:01:29.329 --> 00:01:31.819 align:start position:0%
doesn't mean that one caused the other a
strawman<00:01:30.329><c> is</c><00:01:30.840><c> when</c><00:01:31.049><c> someone</c><00:01:31.409><c> takes</c><00:01:31.590><c> an</c>

00:01:31.819 --> 00:01:31.829 align:start position:0%
strawman is when someone takes an
 

00:01:31.829 --> 00:01:33.859 align:start position:0%
strawman is when someone takes an
argument<00:01:31.979><c> and</c><00:01:32.369><c> misrepresents</c><00:01:33.329><c> it</c><00:01:33.450><c> so</c><00:01:33.720><c> that</c>

00:01:33.859 --> 00:01:33.869 align:start position:0%
argument and misrepresents it so that
 

00:01:33.869 --> 00:01:37.310 align:start position:0%
argument and misrepresents it so that
it's<00:01:33.990><c> easier</c><00:01:34.320><c> to</c><00:01:34.380><c> attack</c><00:01:35.180><c> for</c><00:01:36.180><c> example</c><00:01:36.689><c> let's</c>

00:01:37.310 --> 00:01:37.320 align:start position:0%
it's easier to attack for example let's
 

00:01:37.320 --> 00:01:39.230 align:start position:0%
it's easier to attack for example let's
say<00:01:37.500><c> Callie</c><00:01:37.799><c> is</c><00:01:38.009><c> advocating</c><00:01:38.640><c> that</c><00:01:38.670><c> sporks</c>

00:01:39.230 --> 00:01:39.240 align:start position:0%
say Callie is advocating that sporks
 

00:01:39.240 --> 00:01:40.700 align:start position:0%
say Callie is advocating that sporks
should<00:01:39.630><c> be</c><00:01:39.750><c> the</c><00:01:39.869><c> new</c><00:01:40.049><c> standard</c><00:01:40.110><c> for</c>

00:01:40.700 --> 00:01:40.710 align:start position:0%
should be the new standard for
 

00:01:40.710 --> 00:01:43.090 align:start position:0%
should be the new standard for
silverware<00:01:41.070><c> since</c><00:01:41.729><c> they're</c><00:01:41.909><c> more</c><00:01:42.060><c> efficient</c>

00:01:43.090 --> 00:01:43.100 align:start position:0%
silverware since they're more efficient
 

00:01:43.100 --> 00:01:45.380 align:start position:0%
silverware since they're more efficient
Madeleine<00:01:44.100><c> responds</c><00:01:44.670><c> that</c><00:01:44.820><c> she's</c><00:01:45.060><c> shocked</c>

00:01:45.380 --> 00:01:45.390 align:start position:0%
Madeleine responds that she's shocked
 

00:01:45.390 --> 00:01:47.330 align:start position:0%
Madeleine responds that she's shocked
Callie<00:01:45.840><c> would</c><00:01:46.079><c> want</c><00:01:46.320><c> to</c><00:01:46.409><c> outlaw</c><00:01:46.799><c> spoons</c><00:01:47.159><c> and</c>

00:01:47.330 --> 00:01:47.340 align:start position:0%
Callie would want to outlaw spoons and
 

00:01:47.340 --> 00:01:49.880 align:start position:0%
Callie would want to outlaw spoons and
forks<00:01:47.399><c> and</c><00:01:47.909><c> put</c><00:01:48.750><c> millions</c><00:01:49.020><c> out</c><00:01:49.350><c> of</c><00:01:49.409><c> work</c><00:01:49.530><c> at</c>

00:01:49.880 --> 00:01:49.890 align:start position:0%
forks and put millions out of work at
 

00:01:49.890 --> 00:01:53.149 align:start position:0%
forks and put millions out of work at
the<00:01:50.100><c> fork</c><00:01:50.340><c> and</c><00:01:50.460><c> spoon</c><00:01:50.610><c> factories</c><00:01:51.329><c> a</c><00:01:51.979><c> straw</c><00:01:52.979><c> man</c>

00:01:53.149 --> 00:01:53.159 align:start position:0%
the fork and spoon factories a straw man
 

00:01:53.159 --> 00:01:55.069 align:start position:0%
the fork and spoon factories a straw man
is<00:01:53.340><c> frequently</c><00:01:53.759><c> used</c><00:01:53.820><c> in</c><00:01:54.149><c> politics</c><00:01:54.600><c> in</c><00:01:54.869><c> an</c>

00:01:55.069 --> 00:01:55.079 align:start position:0%
is frequently used in politics in an
 

00:01:55.079 --> 00:01:56.179 align:start position:0%
is frequently used in politics in an
effort<00:01:55.350><c> to</c><00:01:55.380><c> discredit</c><00:01:55.740><c> and</c><00:01:56.070><c> other</c>

00:01:56.179 --> 00:01:56.189 align:start position:0%
effort to discredit and other
 

00:01:56.189 --> 00:01:59.590 align:start position:0%
effort to discredit and other
politicians<00:01:56.850><c> views</c><00:01:57.210><c> on</c><00:01:57.390><c> a</c><00:01:57.420><c> particular</c><00:01:58.170><c> issue</c>

00:01:59.590 --> 00:01:59.600 align:start position:0%
politicians views on a particular issue
 

00:01:59.600 --> 00:02:01.850 align:start position:0%
politicians views on a particular issue
begging<00:02:00.600><c> the</c><00:02:00.780><c> question</c><00:02:00.960><c> is</c><00:02:01.440><c> a</c><00:02:01.500><c> type</c><00:02:01.830><c> of</c>

00:02:01.850 --> 00:02:01.860 align:start position:0%
begging the question is a type of
 

00:02:01.860 --> 00:02:03.950 align:start position:0%
begging the question is a type of
circular<00:02:02.400><c> argument</c><00:02:02.940><c> where</c><00:02:03.150><c> someone</c><00:02:03.510><c> includes</c>

00:02:03.950 --> 00:02:03.960 align:start position:0%
circular argument where someone includes
 

00:02:03.960 --> 00:02:05.720 align:start position:0%
circular argument where someone includes
the<00:02:04.200><c> conclusion</c><00:02:04.800><c> as</c><00:02:04.980><c> a</c><00:02:05.040><c> part</c><00:02:05.520><c> of</c><00:02:05.580><c> their</c>

00:02:05.720 --> 00:02:05.730 align:start position:0%
the conclusion as a part of their
 

00:02:05.730 --> 00:02:09.410 align:start position:0%
the conclusion as a part of their
reasoning<00:02:06.380><c> George</c><00:02:07.380><c> says</c><00:02:07.759><c> ghosts</c><00:02:08.759><c> exist</c>

00:02:09.410 --> 00:02:09.420 align:start position:0%
reasoning George says ghosts exist
 

00:02:09.420 --> 00:02:13.940 align:start position:0%
reasoning George says ghosts exist
because<00:02:10.259><c> I</c><00:02:10.679><c> saw</c><00:02:11.039><c> a</c><00:02:11.250><c> ghost</c><00:02:11.520><c> in</c><00:02:11.790><c> my</c><00:02:11.820><c> closet</c><00:02:12.950><c> his</c>

00:02:13.940 --> 00:02:13.950 align:start position:0%
because I saw a ghost in my closet his
 

00:02:13.950 --> 00:02:16.070 align:start position:0%
because I saw a ghost in my closet his
conclusion<00:02:14.640><c> is</c><00:02:14.790><c> ghosts</c><00:02:15.450><c> exist</c>

00:02:16.070 --> 00:02:16.080 align:start position:0%
conclusion is ghosts exist
 

00:02:16.080 --> 00:02:18.740 align:start position:0%
conclusion is ghosts exist
his<00:02:16.650><c> premise</c><00:02:17.010><c> also</c><00:02:17.670><c> assumes</c><00:02:18.090><c> that</c><00:02:18.360><c> ghosts</c>

00:02:18.740 --> 00:02:18.750 align:start position:0%
his premise also assumes that ghosts
 

00:02:18.750 --> 00:02:21.590 align:start position:0%
his premise also assumes that ghosts
exist<00:02:19.280><c> rather</c><00:02:20.280><c> than</c><00:02:20.550><c> assuming</c><00:02:21.090><c> that</c><00:02:21.270><c> ghosts</c>

00:02:21.590 --> 00:02:21.600 align:start position:0%
exist rather than assuming that ghosts
 

00:02:21.600 --> 00:02:23.540 align:start position:0%
exist rather than assuming that ghosts
exist<00:02:21.660><c> from</c><00:02:22.050><c> the</c><00:02:22.110><c> get-go</c><00:02:22.380><c> George</c><00:02:23.220><c> should</c><00:02:23.459><c> be</c>

00:02:23.540 --> 00:02:23.550 align:start position:0%
exist from the get-go George should be
 

00:02:23.550 --> 00:02:25.670 align:start position:0%
exist from the get-go George should be
using<00:02:23.790><c> evidence</c><00:02:24.330><c> and</c><00:02:24.540><c> reasoning</c><00:02:25.080><c> to</c><00:02:25.230><c> prove</c>

00:02:25.670 --> 00:02:25.680 align:start position:0%
using evidence and reasoning to prove
 

00:02:25.680 --> 00:02:28.699 align:start position:0%
using evidence and reasoning to prove
that<00:02:26.010><c> they</c><00:02:26.160><c> exist</c><00:02:26.780><c> the</c><00:02:27.780><c> false</c><00:02:28.050><c> dilemma</c><00:02:28.440><c> or</c>

00:02:28.699 --> 00:02:28.709 align:start position:0%
that they exist the false dilemma or
 

00:02:28.709 --> 00:02:31.010 align:start position:0%
that they exist the false dilemma or
false<00:02:29.190><c> dichotomy</c><00:02:29.850><c> is</c><00:02:30.000><c> a</c><00:02:30.300><c> logical</c><00:02:30.810><c> fallacy</c>

00:02:31.010 --> 00:02:31.020 align:start position:0%
false dichotomy is a logical fallacy
 

00:02:31.020 --> 00:02:33.350 align:start position:0%
false dichotomy is a logical fallacy
where<00:02:31.530><c> a</c><00:02:31.560><c> situation</c><00:02:31.860><c> is</c><00:02:32.370><c> presented</c><00:02:32.880><c> as</c><00:02:33.000><c> being</c>

00:02:33.350 --> 00:02:33.360 align:start position:0%
where a situation is presented as being
 

00:02:33.360 --> 00:02:35.270 align:start position:0%
where a situation is presented as being
an<00:02:33.600><c> either/or</c><00:02:34.110><c> option</c><00:02:34.650><c> when</c><00:02:34.980><c> in</c><00:02:35.130><c> reality</c>

00:02:35.270 --> 00:02:35.280 align:start position:0%
an either/or option when in reality
 

00:02:35.280 --> 00:02:37.130 align:start position:0%
an either/or option when in reality
there<00:02:35.940><c> are</c><00:02:35.970><c> more</c><00:02:36.270><c> possible</c><00:02:36.750><c> options</c>

00:02:37.130 --> 00:02:37.140 align:start position:0%
there are more possible options
 

00:02:37.140 --> 00:02:39.670 align:start position:0%
there are more possible options
available<00:02:37.260><c> than</c><00:02:37.770><c> just</c><00:02:38.010><c> the</c><00:02:38.130><c> chosen</c><00:02:38.370><c> to</c>

00:02:39.670 --> 00:02:39.680 align:start position:0%
available than just the chosen to
 

00:02:39.680 --> 00:02:42.949 align:start position:0%
available than just the chosen to
Rebecca<00:02:40.680><c> rings</c><00:02:40.980><c> the</c><00:02:41.190><c> doorbell</c><00:02:41.580><c> but</c><00:02:41.959><c> Ethan</c>

00:02:42.949 --> 00:02:42.959 align:start position:0%
Rebecca rings the doorbell but Ethan
 

00:02:42.959 --> 00:02:44.060 align:start position:0%
Rebecca rings the doorbell but Ethan
doesn't<00:02:43.709><c> answer</c>

00:02:44.060 --> 00:02:44.070 align:start position:0%
doesn't answer
 

00:02:44.070 --> 00:02:47.810 align:start position:0%
doesn't answer
she<00:02:44.880><c> then</c><00:02:45.060><c> thinks</c><00:02:45.390><c> oh</c><00:02:46.250><c> Ethan</c><00:02:47.250><c> must</c><00:02:47.459><c> not</c><00:02:47.670><c> be</c>

00:02:47.810 --> 00:02:47.820 align:start position:0%
she then thinks oh Ethan must not be
 

00:02:47.820 --> 00:02:48.699 align:start position:0%
she then thinks oh Ethan must not be
home

00:02:48.699 --> 00:02:48.709 align:start position:0%
home
 

00:02:48.709 --> 00:02:51.860 align:start position:0%
home
Rebecca<00:02:49.709><c> posits</c><00:02:50.280><c> that</c><00:02:50.459><c> either</c><00:02:50.970><c> Ethan</c><00:02:51.510><c> answers</c>

00:02:51.860 --> 00:02:51.870 align:start position:0%
Rebecca posits that either Ethan answers
 

00:02:51.870 --> 00:02:55.729 align:start position:0%
Rebecca posits that either Ethan answers
the<00:02:52.050><c> door</c><00:02:52.230><c> or</c><00:02:52.650><c> he</c><00:02:53.370><c> is</c><00:02:53.489><c> at</c><00:02:53.640><c> home</c><00:02:53.820><c> in</c><00:02:54.380><c> reality</c><00:02:55.380><c> he</c>

00:02:55.729 --> 00:02:55.739 align:start position:0%
the door or he is at home in reality he
 

00:02:55.739 --> 00:02:58.370 align:start position:0%
the door or he is at home in reality he
could<00:02:55.950><c> be</c><00:02:56.100><c> sleeping</c><00:02:56.660><c> doing</c><00:02:57.660><c> some</c><00:02:57.900><c> work</c><00:02:58.110><c> in</c><00:02:58.290><c> the</c>

00:02:58.370 --> 00:02:58.380 align:start position:0%
could be sleeping doing some work in the
 

00:02:58.380 --> 00:03:02.240 align:start position:0%
could be sleeping doing some work in the
backyard<00:02:58.560><c> or</c><00:02:59.100><c> taking</c><00:02:59.970><c> a</c><00:03:00.060><c> shower</c><00:03:00.770><c> most</c><00:03:01.770><c> logical</c>

00:03:02.240 --> 00:03:02.250 align:start position:0%
backyard or taking a shower most logical
 

00:03:02.250 --> 00:03:03.949 align:start position:0%
backyard or taking a shower most logical
fallacies<00:03:02.700><c> can</c><00:03:02.910><c> be</c><00:03:03.030><c> spotted</c><00:03:03.450><c> by</c><00:03:03.480><c> thinking</c>

00:03:03.949 --> 00:03:03.959 align:start position:0%
fallacies can be spotted by thinking
 

00:03:03.959 --> 00:03:06.699 align:start position:0%
fallacies can be spotted by thinking
critically<00:03:04.530><c> make</c><00:03:05.340><c> sure</c><00:03:05.549><c> to</c><00:03:05.670><c> ask</c><00:03:05.790><c> questions</c><00:03:05.910><c> is</c>

00:03:06.699 --> 00:03:06.709 align:start position:0%
critically make sure to ask questions is
 

00:03:06.709 --> 00:03:09.830 align:start position:0%
critically make sure to ask questions is
logic<00:03:07.709><c> at</c><00:03:07.830><c> work</c><00:03:07.980><c> here</c><00:03:08.310><c> or</c><00:03:08.549><c> is</c><00:03:09.390><c> it</c><00:03:09.450><c> simply</c>

00:03:09.830 --> 00:03:09.840 align:start position:0%
logic at work here or is it simply
 

00:03:09.840 --> 00:03:13.100 align:start position:0%
logic at work here or is it simply
rhetoric<00:03:10.400><c> does</c><00:03:11.400><c> their</c><00:03:11.580><c> proof</c><00:03:11.970><c> actually</c><00:03:12.870><c> lead</c>

00:03:13.100 --> 00:03:13.110 align:start position:0%
rhetoric does their proof actually lead
 

00:03:13.110 --> 00:03:15.949 align:start position:0%
rhetoric does their proof actually lead
to<00:03:13.290><c> the</c><00:03:13.410><c> conclusion</c><00:03:13.590><c> they're</c><00:03:14.190><c> proposing</c><00:03:14.959><c> by</c>

00:03:15.949 --> 00:03:15.959 align:start position:0%
to the conclusion they're proposing by
 

00:03:15.959 --> 00:03:17.870 align:start position:0%
to the conclusion they're proposing by
applying<00:03:16.380><c> critical</c><00:03:16.650><c> thinking</c><00:03:17.190><c> you'll</c><00:03:17.700><c> be</c>

00:03:17.870 --> 00:03:17.880 align:start position:0%
applying critical thinking you'll be
 

00:03:17.880 --> 00:03:19.789 align:start position:0%
applying critical thinking you'll be
able<00:03:18.000><c> to</c><00:03:18.209><c> detect</c><00:03:18.450><c> logical</c><00:03:19.080><c> fallacies</c><00:03:19.560><c> in</c><00:03:19.709><c> the</c>

00:03:19.789 --> 00:03:19.799 align:start position:0%
able to detect logical fallacies in the
 

00:03:19.799 --> 00:03:21.590 align:start position:0%
able to detect logical fallacies in the
world<00:03:19.980><c> around</c><00:03:20.280><c> you</c><00:03:20.549><c> and</c><00:03:20.730><c> prevent</c><00:03:21.360><c> yourself</c>

00:03:21.590 --> 00:03:21.600 align:start position:0%
world around you and prevent yourself
 

00:03:21.600 --> 00:03:29.800 align:start position:0%
world around you and prevent yourself
from<00:03:22.019><c> using</c><00:03:22.739><c> them</c><00:03:23.040><c> as</c><00:03:23.190><c> well</c><00:03:28.130><c> GCF</c><00:03:29.130><c> global</c>

00:03:29.800 --> 00:03:29.810 align:start position:0%
from using them as well GCF global
 

00:03:29.810 --> 00:03:34.220 align:start position:0%
from using them as well GCF global
creating<00:03:30.810><c> opportunities</c><00:03:31.500><c> for</c><00:03:31.530><c> a</c><00:03:31.890><c> better</c><00:03:31.950><c> life</c>