REMINDER!!!
------------
*   STANDARDIZATION is restating an argument in
    STANDARD LOGICAL FORM

*   an argument is in STANDARD LOGICAL FORM
    when:

    *   each step in the (restated) argument is numbered 
        consecutively

    *   premises are stated ABOVE the conclusions they
        are claimed to support

    *   justifications are provided for each conclusion
        in the argument

    *   for each conclusion or subconclusion,
        indicate in PARENTHESES which previous steps
        that conclusion or subconclusion is claimed to
	follow from


-----------
A LITTLE MORE REVIEW:
-----------
*   here are the steps to OBTAIN this form:

    1. read through the argument, try to identify its main
       conclusion
       *   then go back through the argument and identify
           major premises and subconclusions offered in
           support of that main conclusion

       *   paraphrase as needed to clarify meaning

    2. omit any unnecessary or irrelevant material

    3. number the steps in the argument, and stack them
       in "correct" logical order (e.g., 
       premises, then conclusion)

    4. fill in any missing key premises or conclusions
       *   place BRACKETS [ ] around implied statements to indicate
           that you added them

    5. add parenthetical justifications for each
       conclusion/subconclusion
       *   that is, for each conclusion or sub-conclusion, indicate
           in parentheses from WHICH previous lines in the argument
	   that conclusion/sub-conclusion is claimed to directly follow

-----------
NEWLY-ADDED BIT!!!
-----------
*   a few more RULES for standard logical form:
    *   Write in complete sentences only!

    *   Only 1 statement per (numbered) line!

    *   Leave out non-statements!
        (note that statements in those devices such as
	rhetorical questions should be re-written to be
	more recognizably a statement)

    *   Include only premises, sub-conclusions, and the
        conclusion

************
EXAMPLE 1
************
--------
"We can see something only after it has happened. Future events,
however, have not yet happened. So, seeing a future event seems to
imply both that it has and has not happened, and that's logically
impossible."
--------

*   and in class, we tried to walk through the standardization
    process, ending up with the standardized form:

--------
1. We can see something only after it has happened.

2. Future events have not yet happened.

3. So, seeing a future event seems to imply both that it has and
   has not happened. (from 1 and 2)

4. It is logically impossible for an event to have happened
   and not to have happened.

5. [Therefore, it is logically impossible to see a future event.]
   (from 3 and 4)
--------