For intuition, gloss of the abduction rules: drunk(e,x) -- what is the e? The event itself. The first argument is the event itself. I will leave those out in my gloss. Going for intuition: 78: an explanation is a coherence relation 79: a cause explains its effect I'll fill in John and Bill, for concreteness: 80: if bill is drunk, then john diswants bill to drive and the drunk event causes the diswant event 81: if john does not want bill to drive, then john diswants bill to have his car keys, and the diswant of bill-driving causes the diswant of bill-having the car keys 82: if john diswants john to have his car keys, then john will hide the car keys from bill, and the diswant of bill-having causes the key-hiding 83: If x causes y and y causes z then x causes z 84 & 85: these come from the utterance itself. That john hid bill's carkeys and someone is drunk. Ok, to the figure: Look at the spot labeled 82 on your handouts. Look at 82: y is john, x is bill, z is the car keys working backwards, using abduction, trying to find an explanation. So, the right-hand-side is above the left-hand-side note: eh == e1 top part: something causes john to hide bill's car keys: cause(e3,eh) and hide(eh,john,bill,ck) bottom part, the explanation: note: eo == e5 diswant(e3,j,eo) and have(eo,bill,ck) John diswanting bill to have bill's carkeys is how we are explaining john's hiding bill's car keys. Let's jump to the bottom: This uses 80: We have that john diswants bill to drive -- A mistake in the text. This should be 'bill'. not 'he' as in the text. The reason is that we used "hide(..john,bill,ck)" from the utterance in our reasoning stream. This instantiates the rules above there to bill. So, we have: john diswants bill to drive, and that diswant was caused by something else....ed on the handout... using 80: if we assume that x in 80 is bill, then everything matches.