Lecture 3-7 - An Example of Recondstruction

Now, we've really done it. We're finished
with reconstruction. Hooray. But we want

to go through it one more time in a
detailed example to show how that all the

different stages fit together. And which
example are we going to pick? Well, if

you've been in the course this far, I bet
you can guess. Robert Redford again. We're

going to look at paragraph three of his
article and go through reconstruction to

show that reconstruction gives you an even
deeper understanding than when we first

went through it using close analysis
alone. Reconstruction begins with close

analysis. So, the first thing I'll do is
read through the passage and mark the

important words in order to do a close
analysis of Redford's paragraph. The BLM

says it's hands are tied. Remember, the
BLM is the Bureau of Land Management. Why?

Because, because it's a premise marker.
It's indicating that the sentence after is

a premise for the conclusion that the
BLM's hands are tied. Because these lands

were set aside subject to valid existing
rights, you could say that valid and

rights are evaluative terms but that's not
going to matter to our analysis here. And

Conoco has a lease that gives it the right
to drill. And notice we've got a tricky

argument marker here, gives it. Because
the point of that sentence is that it's

the lease that explains why it has the
right to drill or justifies the claim that

it does have the right to drill, so gives
it is an argument marker and in

particular, it has the right to drill is
the conclusion, so it's a conclusion

marker. Sure, Conoco has a lease. Sure is
going to be an assuring term, more then

one, in fact. In fact is another assuring
term but, but it's going to be a

discounting term, indicating that there is
an objection being responded to. Those

leases were originally issued without
sufficient environmental study or public

input. And you could think that
originally, it's a guarding term because

it's not saying that they are never was
sufficient environmental input that is

environmental study or public input. It
might have come later just not originally,

but again, that's not going to play any
part in the argument itself. So, it could

be a guarding term but you can mark it if
you want. But as a result, the first three

words of the next sentence, that's clearly
an argument marker. And it's indicating

that the sentence after it is a
conclusion. So, it's a conclusion marker.

None of them conveyed a valid right to
drill. What's more, now, we're indicating

there's a separate argument. There's a new
premise coming, another reason for the

same conclusion. In deciding to issue a
permit to drill right now, the BLM did not

conduct a full analysis of the
environmental impacts of drilling in these

incomparable lands, but discounting,
right? Instead, determined that there

would be no significant environmental harm
on the basis of, this is telling you, how

they reach that determination, it was an
abbreviated review. They had an

abbreviated review that justified or
explained their determination. So, that's

a premise marker. It didn't even look even
as a tricky one it's discounting an

objection. It's saying well, they looked a
little bit but they didn't look at this.

It discounted the objection that they did
lookups, at least some. They didn't even

look at drilling on the other federal
leases, okay? Sounds like clearly a

guarding term. It's not saying it is, but
it sounds like Washington doublespeak.

Doublespeak is bad. You don't want to
doublespeak to me. And maybe, to me, is

another guarding term in the sense that it
sounds that way to me, but not to others.

So, we could mark that as a guard as well.
So, we have finished stage one of

reconstructing this argument. We've done a
close analysis. The next stage is to get

rid of all the excess verbiage. So, we'll
start a new screen and do that. The BLM

saysm its hands are tied. Well, the claim
is that its hands are tied, so we can get

rid of the fact that the BLM says that.
Why? Because we can get rid of those words

cuz they're going to get replaced by a dot
pyramid in standard form. These land s

were set aside subject to valid existing
rights, good. And the Conoco has a lease

that gives it the right to drill, good.
And we can get rid of, because we're going

to have two separate premises there that
gives it, right? Well, that's going to be

an argument marker as we saw that's going
to get replaced by another dot pyramid.

Sure, Conoco has a lease, more than one,
in fact. Now, noticed there, Redford is

admitting what his opponent claims, but
that's not going to be part of his

argument, he's just saying, I recognize
that. His arguments are going be based on

different clients so we can get rid of
sure, Conoco has a lease, more than one,

in fact, and the but tells you that he's
just answering an objection. These leases

were originally issued without sufficient
environmental study or input, that's going

to be an important premise. As a result,
we saw that was an argument marker going

to be replaced by a dot pyramid like the
others. None of them conveyed a valid

right to drill. What's more, another
argument marker, so it's going to get

replaced by a dot pyramid. In deciding to
issue a permit to drill now, the BLM did

not conduct a full analysis, blah, blah,
blah. But instead, that's going to be

discounting terms, and that's going to be
important for understanding what the

sentences are doing. But it's not going to
get repeated in the premise when we put it

in standard form. They determined there
would be no significant impact on the

basis of an abbreviated review, that
didn't even look at drilling on the other

federal leases. The next step is to take
all the parts that weren't crossed out.

They're going to be the explicit premises
and conclusion in the argument, and put

them into standard form. If you think
about this paragraph, there are really two

arguments, because at the start, what
Redford tries to do is to state what the

BLM's argument was to begin with, and then
he gives his own argument against what the

BLM says. So, BLM's argument can be put in
standard form like this. First premise,

Conoco has a list that gives it the right
to drill. Second premise, these lands were

set aside subject to valid existing
rights, and those two premises lead to the

conclusion that the BLM's hands were tied.
Now, that's the BLM's argument that

Redford is arguing against. Redford's own
argument on the other side, starts with

the premise, those leases were originally
issued without sufficient environmental

study or public input. Second premise, in
deciding to issue a permit to drill now,

the BLM did not conduct a full analysis of
the environmental impacts of drilling on

these incomparable lands. But instead,
determined there would be no significant

environmental harm on the basis of an
abbreviated review that didn't even look

at drilling on other federal leases. Those
two premises lead to the conclusion that

none of these convey the valid right to
drill. And then, there's another premise,

these lands were set aside subject to
valid existing rights and that's suppose

to lead the conclusion, this is Washington
doublespeak. Well, we'll have to see what

all that means when we clarify but that's
basically the standard form. It might be a

good idea to double check because you want
to make sure that every sentence that you

didn't cross out is somewhere there in the
standard form. So, let's look back at the

passage where we crossed out the excess
and make sure everything is there in the

standard form. Okay. It's all there. Good.
Well, the next stage is to sharpen edges.

And that means clarify the premises and
break them up where doing so would help

understand what they are really claiming.
So, let's look first at the BLM's

argument. Which simply says, Conoco has a
lease. These lands were set aside subject

to valid rights, therefore, its hands are
tied. We're going to clarify, first of

all, the conclusion. Its hands are tied.
What does that mean? Well, basically, the

BLM is claiming, I can't do anything about
Conoco. You know, my hands are tied. Don't

hold me responsible, there's nothing I can
do, okay? They are offering, an excuse.

Next, p remise two. These lands were set
aside subject to valid existing rights.

Well, what does set aside means? It means,
that you're not allowed to drill there.

Subject to valid, existing rights means
that you are allowed to drill there if

you've got a valid existing right. So,
this premise can be restated as saying

that if Conaco does have a valid, existing
right to drill, then the BLM must allow

Conaco to drill? Okay, what about breaking
up premises? What about premise one? Well,

that's one that I think we're going to
have to break up. Cuz it says, that Conoco

has a lease that gives it the right to
drill. And gives it, we already marked as

an argument marker, which suggests that
the fact that Conoco has a lease is

supposed to be a reason why it has a right
to drill. So, there's an argument implicit

in that one sentence. And that means that
we can take this whole argument and

restate it something like this. Conoco has
a lease, therefore, Conoco has a valid

right to drill. If Conoco has a valid
right to drill, then the BLM must allow

Conoco to drill. Therefore, the BLM must
allow Conoco to drill. That is supposed to

be the central force of the explicit
premises and conclusions in the first

part, where the BLM gives its argument.
The next part is Redford's response to

this argument. Let's start with Redford's
conclusion. What is he trying to show?

He's trying to show the opposite of the
BLM's argument. They're trying to show

that their hands are tied, that is that
they can't stop Conoco from drilling. So,

Redford wants to show that they can stop
Conoco from drilling, or even that they

must stop Conoco from drilling. So, that's
the conclusion he's trying to reach. What

he says is, sounds like Washington
doublespeak to me. Well, that because he's

saying that people in Washington always
say their hands are tied and can't get

anything done and he's going to argue that
their hands aren't tied, because they can

and must stop Conoco from drilling. So, we
can replace the conclusion simply with the

claim that the BLM must stop Conoco from
drilling. Now, we know how the argument

ends. So, let's take those premises and
conclusion and number them pretty high so

that we can leave some room for the other
premises that come before them. The next

thing we need to do is to get an argument
for that central premise, Conoco does not

have any valid right to drill. No, here's
what Redford said. That the leases were

originally issued without sufficient
environmental study or public input. And

in deciding to issue a permit now, the BLM
didn't conduct a full analysis. Notice

that there are two parts to these claims.
One is about the leases and the other is

about the permit. Because in order to have
a valid right to drill, Conoco needs to

have a lease and a permit. Redford argues
that there are problems with both the

lease and the permit. But the
considerations are a little different so

we need to separate those two parts into
different arguments. The first part of his

argument concerns the leases. He says,
that the leases were originally issued

without sufficient environmental study or
public input. Therefore, none of the

leases conveyed a valid right to drill.
Then, the second part has to do with the

permit. In deciding the issue of permit to
drill now, the BLM did not conduct a full

analysis, therefore, none of the permits
conveyed a valid right to drill. And the

idea of the argument is going to be that
the leases don't give them a right and the

permits don't give them a right, so they
ain't go no right. Wow. But that premise

in the argument to show that the permit is
not valid is a long premise, with lots of

different parts. So, we need to break it
up. And we can figure out how to break it

up by looking at the argument markers in
the part of the passage that in effect

constitute that premise. We know that
there's a premise marker at the beginning.

Once more, a discounting term, but on the
basis of, is an argument marker. Even is a

discounting term and that breaks that long
premise into parts so we can break them

into A, the BLM did not conduct a full
analysis of the environmental impacts of

drilling on these incomparable lands, no
full analysis. B, the BLM determined that

there would be no significant
environmental harm, okay? C, the BLM

conductive only in abbreviated review of
the environmental harm. And D, the BLM

didn't even look at drilling on other
federal leases. What about B, the BLM

determined there would be no significant
environmental impact. Well, that's what

Redford opposes so that's not going to be
part of his argument. How do the other

three claims fit together. Which is a
reason for which? And now, we're into a

different step, namely, organize the
parts. And it's not completely clear but

it seems like Redford has two separate
complaints. One is that the BLM did not

look sufficiently hard at the
environmental impact at this particular

site, the [UNKNOWN]. The other complaint
is that they didn't do a comparative

analysis and look at other leases on other
federal lands to see, you know, what

happens when drilling was allowed there
and when permits were issued in those

other circumstances. So, one claim is
about this particular site and the other

claim is a lack of comparison to other
sites. These two points become even

clearer in the next paragraph, if you'll
remember that. There he said, first, I've

spent considerable time in these
extraordinary lands for years and I know

that an oil rig in their midst would have
a major impact. So there, he's talking

about the impact on this particular site,
on these particular lands. Right after

that, he says, what's more, indicating
it's a separate argument, what's more,

Conoco wants to drill a well to find oil.
Inevitably, more rigs, more roads, new

pipelines, toxic waste, and bright lights
would follow to get the oil out. There, he

seems to be suggesting, if you just looked
over at the other leases, you'd find that

when you allow oil drilling, a lot more
happens than you ever expected to begin

with. I'm, of course, not agreeing with
this. It might of be true or it might not.

My point is that this is a structure of
Redford's own claims that make up his own

argument. So, there are two separate ways
in which the review failed to be false.

The first is that the BLM conducted only
an abbreviated review in the sense that

they didn't look carefully at this
particular site itself. And the second is

that the BLM didn't look at drilling in
other places. Therefore, the conclusion is

the BLM did not conduct a full analysis.
That seems to be what Redford is saying in

this particular sentence. Now, let's bring
it all together and clean it up a little

bit in the process. One, all of Conoco's
leases were originally issued without

sufficient environmental study or public
input that's supposed to support. Two,

none of Conoco's leases give it a valid
right to drill. Then three, the BLM

conducted an abbreviated review. They
didn't look as careful as they should have

at the lands. Four, the BLM didn't look at
drilling on lands under the other federal

leases of the comparative claim. And those
two are suppose to support five the BLM

did not conduct a full analysis. And what
that's suppose to show is that six, its

permit did not give Conoco a valid right
to drill. They are four, seven which is

supposed to follow from two and six.
Conoco does not have a valid right to

drill. A, if Conoco does not have a valid
right to drill, then the BLM must not

allow Conoco to drill. Therefore, the BLM
must not allow Conoco to drill. Make

sense? Seem fair? I hope so. I think it's
a pretty good reconstruction of what

Redford had in mind. However, as you
probably noticed already, these arguments

are not valid yet, so we need to go to the
next stage and fill in the gaps with

surpressed premises. Let's do that now,
let's start with the BLM's argument. Is

the argument from one to two valid? Is it
possible that Conoco has a lease but it

doesn't have a valid right to drill? Well,
sure. And so, that argument is not valid.

What do we need to add to make it valid?
Well, we can add a very simple suppressed

premise. If Conoco does have a lease, then
it has a valid right to drill. If you add

that to that premise that they do have a
lease, then it will be a valid argument to

the conclusion that they have a valid
right to drill. Next, is the argument from

two to three to four valid. Yes. Cuz it's
not possible that Conoco has a valid right

to drill and also, if they have a valid
right to drill, then the BLM must allow

them to drill. And it not be true that the
BLM must allow them to drill. So, we can

take this part of the argument which is
really the BLM's argument but it's in

Redford's passage and reconstruct it like
this. Conoco has a lease. If they have a

lease, then they have a valid right to
drill so they have a valid right to drill.

And if they have a valid right to drill,
then the BLM has to allow them to drill.

So, the BLM has to allow them to drill.
Now, we're ready for Redford's own

argument. His goal is to refute the
premise that we had to add to the BLM

argument in order to make that argument
valid. In the previous excerpt, we saw

that a lot of people suppress premises
that are questionable. And Redford wants

to show how questionable this one is. He's
not going to let them get away with that

old trick. Starting with one and two, is
the argument from one to two valid? No,

because it's possible that the premise is
true and the conclusion false. So, what do

we need to add to make it valid? What we
need to add is suppressed premise. And

that suppressed premise basically says, no
lease that is made without sufficient

environmental study and public input is
valid or conveys a valid right to drill.

Then, we have a valid argument from that
premise plus one to the conclusion two

that none of Conoco's leases give it a
valid right to drill. Next, comes the step

from three and four to five. Is that
valid? No. Three and four say that they

conducted an abbreviated review and they
didn't look at drilling on lands and other

federal leases but those might be true and
is still might be true that they didn't

conduct a full analysis. To explain how
you get five out of three and four, we

have to add another suppressed premise.
And that premise can simply say, an

analysis is not full if it's abbreviated.
And if it doesn't look at drilling on

lands and other federal leases. Notice
that I use the word and instead of or, in

the suppressed premise and the reason is
that I want to make Redford's argument

look as good as possible. And his premise
is going to be more defensible if he uses

and instead of or. Because with and, the
premise means that the review is not full

if it has both of those problems. Whereas,
if you have or, it says, that the review

is not full if it has either one or other
of those problems. And some people might

say that if it has only one of those
problems, it's still a full review. You

know, it's a little problem, it's a little
flaw. We just got both of those problems

then, Redford is on stronger ground in
saying, together, they show that that's

not a full review. So, if I want to make
his premise look good and that's part of

the point, then I want to use and in the
suppressed premise here instead of or.

What about step from five to six, is that
valid? No. Here, we need a suppress

premise, too. Which one? Well, we could
just add that if the BLM did not conduct a

full analysis of the environmental impact,
then the permit does not give the permit

holder a valid right to drill. Because the
process by which they obtained the permit

is not a proper process. Next, what about
the move from two and six to seven? Two

says, that Conoco doesn't have a lease
that gives it a valid right to drill. And

six says, that Conoco doesn't have a
permit that gives it a valid right to

drill. Is it possible that both of those
are true and yet the conclusion is false

and Conoco does have a valid right to
drill? Well, yeah, if there was some other

way for it to get a valid right to drill.
So, to make that argument valid, we have

to add another suppressed premise which
says, basically no. If the lease and the

permit don't give it a valid right to
drill, it ain't got none. More formally

and more st ealthily.
We can add a suppressed premise that says,

if none of Conoco's leases gives it a
valid right to drill and Conoco's permit

does not give Conoco a valid right to
drill, then Conoco does not have a valid

right to drill and that should make that
step of the argument valid. There's only

one left, the step from seven and eight to
nine. Is that valid? Yeah. It's not

possible that Conoco doesn't have a valid
right to drill and if they don't have a

valid right to drill, then the BLM must
not allow them to drill. And not be true

that the BLM must not allow Conoco to
drill. So, that's valid and we don't have

to add any suppressed premise to that one.
And now, we can take all these different

explicit premises and conclusions and put
them together with the suppressed premises

that we just talked about and we end up
with this final reconstruction. One, all

of Conoco's leases were originally issued
without sufficient environmental study or

public input. Two, no leases that were
originally issued without sufficient

environmental study or public input, give
the lease holder a valid right to drill.

Therefore, none of Conoco's leases give it
a valid right to drill. Four, the BLM

conducted an abbreviated review. Five, the
BLM didn't look at drilling on lands under

other federal leases. Six, an analysis is
not full if it's abbreviated and it does

not look at drilling on lands under other
federal leases. Therefore seven, the BLM

did not conduct a full analysis of the
environmental impact of drilling on these

incomparable lands. Eight, if the BLM does
not conduct a full analysis of the

environmental impacts of drilling in these
incomparable lands before issuing a

permit, then that permit does not give the
permit holder a valid right to drill.

Therefore nine, Conoco's permit does not
give Conoco a valid right to drill. Ten,

if none of Conoco's leases gives it a
valid right to drill and Conoco's permit

does not give Conoco a valid right to
drill, then Conoco does not have a valid

right to drill. Therefore eleven, Conoco
does n ot have a valid right to drill.

Twelve, if Conoco does not have a valid
right to drill, then the BLM must not

allow Conoco to drill. Therefore thirteen,
the BLM must not allow Conoco to drill. Of

course, other reconstructions could be
perfectly fine, even if they differ in a

few details because not every step in this
process is purely mechanical so it doesn't

always yield exactly the same results
every time. But I hope that this

reconstruction seems plausible as a guess
at what was going on in Redford's mind and

the reasons that he had for thinking that
the BLM should stop the drilling. If you

want, we can check to make sure that this
structure makes sense by trying to diagram

it. So, here's a diagram that I made of
the structure of the argument that I just

reconstructed. To the left, you see, one
plus two and an underline under it saying

that those premises work together, in a
joint structure, and an arrow, to the

conclusion from those two premises,
namely, three. Then to the right of that

you see that four, five, and six are
joined. Four p-lus five plus six and an

underline with an arrow to seven because
that's the conclusion that those three

premises support. Seven plus eight is then
underlined to show they work jointly to

lead to the conclusion nine, so there's an
arrow to nine. And then, there's a long

underline between three, nine, and ten
that other suppressed premise that was

added. That shows that three, nine, and
ten worked together jointly and lead you

the conclusion eleven. And then, eleven
works together with twelve so you have

eleven plus twelve and that's underline
with an arrow to thirteen. Now, the fact

that we can draw this diagram confirms
that the argument structure makes sense.

Now, let's see whether you can do it
yourself in the exercises.