These are stupid questions, because once you understand what they're asking, the answer is just built in. It follows trivially.

这是些很愚蠢的问题,因为一旦你明白了他们的问题,答案就在其中,一切简单明了

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

If the soul is immaterial, doesn't it follow automatically, trivially, that the soul can't be destroyed by a material process?

如果灵魂是无形的,是否可以顺理成章地得出,灵魂无法被实体过程所摧毁呢

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

More generally, Chomsky suggests that the law of effect when applied to humans is either trivially true, trivially or uninterestingly true, or scientifically robust and obviously false.

更一般的来讲，乔姆斯基认为应用在人类身上的效果律,要么是无效且毫无意义的正确假说，要么就是稳定且明显的错误假说。

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

The reason I think it doesn't follow trivially is because, remember, I said we're dealing with interactionist dualism.

我认为它并非自然地得出结论的原因是,记住,我们在和心物交互二元论打交道

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

It doesn't follow trivially.

或是自然而然得出结论

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

But we have not yet been able to find a claim,an interpretation, which is true,interesting,fairly special about death, as opposed to trivially true about everything, and giving us some relatively interesting insight into the nature of death.

但还是没有找到一种，真实，有趣并且是死亡独有的，相对于对所有事物的普遍事实来说，并且能给我们关于死亡本质有趣见地的诠释。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选