-
Welcome back. Now you've done paragraph
three yourselves and we're going to go on
-
to paragraph four. Might seem like were
doing an awful lot of this, but remember,
-
the only way to learn close analysis is to
practice, practice, practice, practice,
-
practice over and over again on as many
passages as you can find. So we're going
-
to spend one more lecture going though
paragraphs four and five of Robert
-
Redford's piece in the Washington Post
from 1997. The title was, A Piece of God's
-
Handiwork.. In paragraph four starts,
sounds like Washington double-speak to me.
-
Well, what is it that sounds like
Washington double-speak to him. It's the
-
sentence at the end of the previous
paragraph that you analyzed and, that's
-
the claim that they issued the permit
without a full review using an abbreviated
-
review and they didn't even look at the
leases on other federal lands. So, he's
-
saying that sounds like the kind of thing
Washington does when they double-speak.
-
Double-speak is obviously a metaphor.
Right? It's a metaphor for saying one
-
thing to one person, another thing to
another person or sometimes, saying one
-
thing that seems to mean one thing when
what they really mean is another thing.
-
But however you interpret the metaphor of
double-speak, it's not good. So we can
-
indicate that double-speaking is a
negative evaluation and it's a metaphor,
-
but clearly negative in its meeting. You
wouldn't say someone who's speaking
-
properly is double-speak. Notice however,
that he has this phrase sounds like and it
-
sounds like it, to him, what sounds like
doing. Well, he's not saying that it is
-
Washington double-speak. So he's guarding
it. He's weakening the claim. He's not
-
saying it is. He's saying it sounds like
and so that can be labeled as a guarding
-
term. Okay. So he's guarded that claim,
but now he's going to go on and argue
-
against the plan that Washington was
using. I've spent considerable time on
-
these extraordinary lands for years. I've
spent for years. Let's just circle that
-
whole thing to indicate that whole phrase,
cuz it's just a ll doing the same thing.
-
What's it doing? It's assuring you. You
say, because I have spent so much time on
-
these lands, I spent so many years on
them. You can trust me to know what's
-
going on. I've got the evidence. Notice,
like other assuring terms, it's not giving
-
you the evidence. It's saying, you ought
to trust me, because I've got the
-
evidence. I've had the experience. So it's
a perfect example of assuring, because
-
it's saying that he has reasons without
actually giving the reasons and that's why
-
you can't question his reasons cuz you
haven't spent considerable time on those
-
extraordinary lands. And, of course, he
follows that up with another assuring
-
term. He says, and I know. When you say, I
know, that's an assuring term, a mental
-
assuring term, because it's describing the
mental state as being one of knowledge.
-
Knowledge implies truth, and to say I know
it is to imply that it's true to ensure
-
you that it's true. Okay? But what does he
know? He knows that an oil rig in their
-
midst, would have a major impact. And what
about that? A major impact. Okay? Now he's
-
clearly saying it would be a bad impact,
but does he come out and say it's bad? No,
-
he just says it's major. Okay? So it's not
an evaluative term that would be labeled
-
as nothing if nothing is an option. So,
he's clearly suggesting that it's bad, but
-
he's not saying it, so it shouldn't be
marked as an evaluative term, okay? Next,
-
what's more. Well, what's more is kind of
a conjunction, but what came before this
-
was an argument that it would have a major
impact based on his assurance. And so when
-
he says, once more, he's suggesting that
what's going to come next is yet another
-
argument for why we shouldn't have these,
these permits issued. He's going to tell
-
you other bad things about them. So that
can be a premise marker, because what
-
comes after it is the premise. They want
to drill to find oil. Well, we can say, to
-
find oil, it's in order to find oil, that
is going to explain why they want to
-
drill. It's a theleological explanation as
we saw in an earlier lecture and so that
-
is going to be a reason marker, because
their desire to find oil is what explains
-
their desire to want to drill. Okay?
Inevitably. What's that? Assuring. It's
-
assuring you that it's obviously true.
There's no way around it. It is
-
inevitable. What's inevitable? More rigs,
more roads, new pipelines, toxic waste,
-
and bright lights would follow to get the
oil out. Okay? He's assuring you that all
-
of those things are going to happen. The
previous argument, before the what's more,
-
was simply an oil rig. Notice it's just an
oil rig, one oil rig up there in that
-
sentence, but now we've got more rigs,
more roads, new pipelines. So if an oil
-
rig has a major impact, all of this other
stuff's going to a lot more of an impact.
-
That's the point of the what's more. He's
adding additional reasons why the permits
-
should not be issued. Okay? And they would
follow, that means it's going to follow
-
what? In time. It's just temporal. It's
not saying anything more than it's going
-
to follow at a later time, but they're
gonna follow to get the oil out. That
-
explains why they would follow, because,
right, you would need them in order to get
-
the oil out. So that's going to be an
argument marker itself. Is it a reason
-
marker or is it a conclusion marker? Well,
the conclusion is that all that's going to
-
follow. Right? And the premise is that
it's needed in order to get the oil out.
-
So this is going to be a premise marker.
And the conclusion is that you get all
-
that stuff, the pipelines, the roads, the
waste and so on. Okay? So those are his
-
reasons against giving a permit and then
he says, the BLM couldn't see this. Okay?
-
He just states it as a fact. But, what's
the but doing there? Remember, what kind
-
of word a but is. But is a discounting
term. He's answering an objection. The
-
objection is, well, you say all that would
follow, but the BLM would disagree with
-
you and they looked at it very carefully
and they're an authority or an expert. So,
-
the answer to that objection is the US
Fish and Wildlife Service and th e
-
Environmental Protection Agency did see
this. Notice that what comes after the but
-
is more important than what came before
it. What he's doing is saying that there's
-
a contrast between what the BLM couldn't
see and what the US Fish and Wildlife
-
Service and the Environmental Protective
Agency did see, but in addition to the
-
contrast between those two, he's also
saying it's more important that the US
-
Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Environmental Protection Agency did see
-
it. Okay? So what comes after the but is
taken to be more important. And what did
-
they see? Both of these agencies
recognized. Recognized implies, you can't
-
recognize things that aren't true you
know, if you see somebody and you say, I
-
recognize my sister and it wasn't your
sister, you didn't really recognize them.
-
So to say you recognize is to assure
people that it's really true. The
-
devastating. Now devastating can't be
good. so that's E-, effects of extensive
-
oil drilling. Extensive, is that bad? No,
extensive oil drilling is good in the
-
right places. It gives us the kind of
energy we need to be able to accomplish
-
the goals that we want. Maybe you wish you
didn't need extensive oil drilling, but,
-
if you need it, then it's good when it's
done in the right place. And that drilling
-
would have a devastating effects on this
area. And then those two agencies urge the
-
BLM to refuse to allow it. Okay. Why? In
order to protect the monument. And again,
-
we've seen this kind of argument
repeatedly at several points during this
-
particular ad. That's saying that the goal
is to protect the monument and that's what
-
justifies urging the BLM to refuse to
allow it. So this is going to be a premise
-
marker. We've seen in order to protect, in
order to preserve because we want to
-
protect, and so on. He keeps repeating
that. That's not a bad thing. Many times
-
when someone's giving an argument, they
repeat pretty much the same words as in
-
other areas, because they're giving
several arguments for a single conclusion.
-
We'll actually see how those different
reasons ca n fit together in the next
-
section of the course, but for now, all
we're doing is marking the words in an
-
order to as a premise marker. We've
finished four paragraphs. All right. We're
-
almost done. Yeah. Yes . Now we're on to
paragraph five. And it starts, maybe the
-
problem comes from giving management
responsibility for this monument to the
-
BLM. What about the word maybe? The word
maybe is about as clear a case as you can
-
get of a guarding term. It's saying it
might be the case, it might not be the
-
case. I'm not going to definitely claim
that's where the problem comes from. I'm
-
just suggesting that maybe so if somebody
comes along and says that not's really
-
true, I'm going to say, well maybe it's
true, that's all I was claiming, and so
-
I'm now able to defend my premise. Okay?
Problem. What about problem? Got to be E-,
-
right? Another clear example, because you
can't have good things if there are
-
problems. Sure, you can have problems on
math tests that are good, but that's not
-
the kind of problem we're talking about
here. These kinds of problems are bad. And
-
so that word gets marked as E-. So, the
problem comes from namely, is explained
-
by, giving management responsibility for
this monument to the BLM. So it comes
-
from, can get marked as a premise marker.
It's giving management responsibility to
-
the BLM that explains why there's a
problem in the first place and that could
-
be put in the form of an argument. That
explanation could. Okay. So y is giving
-
management responsibility to the BLM,
create a problem, because the next
-
sentence tells you, this is the BLM's
first national monument. This is the first
-
time they've ever done this. Almost all
the other monuments are managed by the
-
National Park Service. Okay? Nothing wrong
in itself with being the first, there
-
always has to be a first, so there's
nothing evaluative there. What about
-
almost all? Clearly guarding. Right?
Because it's not all, it's almost all, so
-
the claim is more defensible. Almost all
the others are managed by the National
-
Park Service. The Park Ser vices' mission
is to protect the resources under its
-
care. Okay? Protect good resources, good,
so those both get E+. While. What about
-
the word while? It's not completely clear.
You could read this as simply setting up a
-
contrast between the parks service's
mission and the bureau's mission, but you
-
can also read it as responding to an
objection. Well, doesn't the government
-
protect those resources? And the answer
is, well, the Park Service does, but the
-
bureau has a different role. The bureau
has always sought to accommodate economic
-
uses. Okay? So if you read that while as
but and you replace it with but, it seems
-
to make sense. The park services' mission
is to protect, but the bureau has always,
-
it looks like you can replace it with a
discounting term which means that while is
-
functioning here as a discounting term.
Okay? The bureau has always saw it, no
-
guardian there. It's always sought that,
right. To accommodate economic uses of
-
those resources under its care. Even so,
starts the next sentence. What is even so
-
doing? Well, even so is a discounting
term, because it's discounting an
-
objection. The objection is, well they've
always sought to accommodate those uses.
-
Well, then how do you explain the fact
that they got off to such a good start?
-
They seem to be, okay? They seem to be,
that's a guarding term. It's not saying
-
they were. It's saying they seem to. We're
getting off to a good start, good. Boy,
-
there's an evaluative plus. You can't beat
that for a clear evaluative plus. To a
-
good start by enlisting broad public
involvement in developing a management
-
plan for the area. Well, what was good
about it? They enlisted broad public
-
involvement, therefore, it was good. Looks
like by enlisting could be a premise
-
marker. The premise is enlist, they
enlisted broad public involvement,
-
therefore, they got off to a good start.
Yet. What's she at? Another discounting
-
term. The agency's decision to allow
drilling in the monument completely
-
undercuts this process just as its
beginning. The objection is, so if they
-
got off to a good start, what's the
problem? If they enlisted broad public
-
involvement, what's the problem? Well,
that's the objection and the response is,
-
now they've decided to allow drilling in
the monument and that completely undercuts
-
the process that did enlist public
involvement. Right? So, the yet is
-
discounting the objection that says,
there's no problem here, they're doing
-
just fine, they got broad public
involvement. They're saying the response
-
to that objection is, but now they have
not got public involvement. They're doing
-
it without a complete review and so on as
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The
-
agency's decision to allow oil drilling in
the monument, completely, no guarding,
-
right, completely undercuts. When it's
that strong a word, like completely, you
-
can almost say it, I'm assuring you, it's
not just partially undercutting it's
-
completely undercutting. That's a way of
making you confident that it really does,
-
at least partially undercut the process
and undercuts sounds like something bad. I
-
suppose you might not want to market as
evaluative because you know, you could
-
undercut a bad process and that would be a
good thing. So, literally you probably
-
should not mark that as evaluative, but
it's clear what Robert Redford thinks
-
about undercutting this process. And now,
just. Just stands for justice, doesn't it?
-
No. Remember from the very first word of
this op-ed, just is nothing here. It
-
means, at the same time when it was
beginning. It's not an evaluative term,
-
even though just sometimes means something
about being just or fair or good. Here, it
-
doesn't mean that at all. So, we're back
to the very word that we began this op-ed
-
with, and so that seems like a good place
to stop. I'll stop marking here. There are
-
other things you could mark. There are
other things to discuss. These paragraphs,
-
these op eds, are always extremely complex
and interesting to try to get the detail
-
straight, but I'll give you a chance to
look at the next three paragraphs. They're
-
all pretty short. And look at those p
aragraphs and see if you can do a close
-
analysis on those, because as I've
emphasized several times, the best. Indeed
-
the only way to learn close analysis is to
practice, practice, practice, practice,