Ольга Кравцова - Английский язык для специальных и академических целей: Международные отношения и зарубежное регионоведение. Часть 1

[the odds were more promising?] — there were better chances of success

Unit I. UK: from Empire to Democracy

1. His (Harold Macmillan's) grandiose scheme for preserving British world power betrayed a flawed understanding of European politics and almost no comprehension of the complex realities of African politics.

2. Predicting historical change is a hazardous business: there are too many factors at play and far too much noise to decode the correct signals.

3. .. .the long fuse was lit by their great geostrategic defeats of 1939-1942.

4. It might be better to see the break-up of empires as a kind of unraveling, in which failure in one sector sets up intolerable strains in others parts of the system.

5. Adjusting to these (strains) creates further unpredictable stresses, until the whole system breaks up or is absorbed piecemeal (по частям) into a stronger successor.

6. .to relieve the main stresses by conceding self-government and sometimes independence while preserving a prime influence in the old zones of rule.

Unit I. UK: from Empire to Democracy

1. Does the summary accurately represent the author's ideas and key points (the author's emphasis)?

2. Is it written in the writer's OWN words? Are quotation marks used if the author is quoted?

3. Are any minor details or new (not the author's!) ideas included?

4. Is it the right length?

Listening for general understanding, for specific information and emotional charge.

Watch the video “Magna Carta and the Emergence of Parliament” (Stories from Parliament) and do the tasks below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qj2vpp9Wf4

1. What do you know about Magna Carta?

2. Do you know the meaning of these words:

a rebel, a traitor, to seize (land, control), parchment, futile?

1. What conflict arose in England in 1215 and what was its cause?

2. Who were the participants in the conflict?

3. What demands did the rebels make?

4. What is the greatest significance of Magna Carta?

1. When was Magna Carta signed?

2. How many rules did it contain?

3. How many rules did King John agree to publicly in the film?

4. Which of the rules did he agree to (choose from the list below)?

Watch and listen to identify emotions.

1. What feeling do the rebels demonstrate at their first meeting? Second (with the Bishop of Canterbury)?

2. Who do you think was the leader of the rebels? Can you identify him by his manner of speaking?

3. What emotions did King John feel when he first heard of the rebels approaching London?

When he was signing the Charter?

Logical thinking (LT) is an intellectual skill which is equally vital for both a speaker and a writer who aim to present a convincing case for their opinion. Flaws in LT can seriously weaken one's position in a debate or in a piece of writing, so it's time to have a closer look at what they are and how to avoid them.

Read the extract from the book ‘Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar. Understanding philosophy through jokes' by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein (chapter “Logic”). What are the main tools of logical thinking according to the authors?

Inductive logic reasons from particular instances to general theories. [.] If you observe enough apples falling from trees, you will conclude that apples always fall down, instead of up or sideways. You might then form a more general hypothesis that includes other falling bodies, like pears. This is the progress of science.

In the annals of literature, no character is as renowned for his powers of “deduction” as the intrepid Sherlock Holmes, but the way Holmes operates is not generally by using deductive logic at all. He really uses inductive logic. First, he carefully observes the situation, then he generalizes from his prior experience, using analogy and probability, as he does in the following story:

Holmes and Watson are on a camping trip in the middle of the night. Holmes wakes up and gives Dr. Watson a nudge.

“Watson,” he says, “look up in the sky and tell me what you see.”

“I see millions of stars, Holmes,” says Watson.

“And what do you conclude from that, Watson?”

Unit I. UK: from Empire to Democracy

Unit I. UK: from Empire to Democracy

Watson thinks for a moment. “Well,” he says,

“Astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Theologically, I see that God is all-powers, and we are small and insignificant. Uh, what does it tell you, Holmes?”

“Watson, you idiot! Someone has stolen out tent!”

We don't know exactly how Holmes arrived at his conclusion, but perhaps it was something like this:

1. I went to sleep in a tent, but now I can see the stars.

2. My intuitive working hypothesis, based on analogies to similar experiences I have had in the past, is that someone has stolen our tent.

3. In testing that hypothesis, let's rule out alternative hypotheses:

a. Perhaps the tent is still here, but someone is projecting a picture of stars on the roof of the tent. This is unlikely, based on my experience of human behavior and the equipment that experience tells me would have to be present in the tent obviously isn't.

b. Perhaps the tent blew away. This is unlikely, as my past experiences lead me to conclude that that amount of wind would have awakened me, though perhaps not Watson.

c. Etc., etc., etc.

4. No, I think my original hypothesis is probably correct. Someone has stolen our tent.

Induction. All these years we've been calling Holmes's skill by the wrong term.

***

Deductive logic reasons from the general to the particular. The bare-bones deductive argument is the syllogism “All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.” It is amazing how often people screw it up and argue something like, “All man are mortal; Socrates is mortal; therefore Socrates is a man,” which doesn't logically follow. This would be like saying, “All men are mortal; my kid's hamster is mortal; therefore, my kid's hamster is a man.”

***

There is nothing like an argument from analogy. [...] Some have argued that because the universe is like a clock, there must be a Clockmaker. [...] this is a slippery argument, because there is nothing that is really perfectly analogous to the universe as a whole, unless it is another universe, so we shouldn't try to pass off anything that is just a part of this universe. Why a clock anyhow? Why not say the universe is analogous to a kangaroo? After all, both are organically interconnected systems. But the kangaroo analogy would lead to a very different conclusion about the origin of the universe: namely, that it was born of another universe after that universe had sex with a third universe. A fundamental problem with arguments from analogy is the assumption that, because some aspects of A are similar to B, other aspects of A are similar to B. It isn't necessarily so.

Another problem with arguments from analogy is that you get totally different analogies from different points of view.

Three engineering students are discussing what sort of God must have designed the human body. The first says, “God must be a mechanical engineer. Look at all the joints.”

The second says. “I think God must be an electrical engineer. The nervous system has thousands of electrical connections.”

The third says, “Actually, God is a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?”

***

The “Post Ergo Propter Hoc” Fallacy /“After this, therefore because of this”/

The phrase describes the error of assuming that because one thing follows another, that thing was caused by the other. For obvious reasons, this false logic is popular in sociopolitical discourse, such as “Most people hooked on heroin started with marijuana.” True, but even more started with milk. Post hoc makes life more entertaining in some cultures: “the sun rises when the rooster crows, so the rooster's crowing makes the sun rise.” Thanks, rooster! Or take our colleague:

Every morning she steps out onto her front stoop and exclaims, “Let this house be safe from tigers!” then she goes inside.

Finally we said to her, “What's that all about? There isn't a tiger within a thousand miles from here.”

And she said, “You see? It works!”

In general we are deceived by this fallacy because we fail to see there's another cause at work.

***

Circular argument is an argument in which the evidence for a proposition contains the proposition itself. [ ]

It was autumn, and the Indians on the reservation asked their new chief if it was going to be a cold winter. Raised in the ways of the modern world, the chief had never been taught the old secrets and had no way of knowing whether the winter would be cold or mild. To be on the safe side, he advised the tribe to collect wood and be prepared for a cold winter. A few days later, as a practical afterthought, he called the national Weather Service and asked whether they were forecasting a cold winter. The meteorologist replied that, indeed, he thought the winter would be quite cold. The chief advised the tribe to stock even more wood.