Lecture 18 - Close Analysis - Part 2

On to the second paragraph. The first
sentence is really simple, not so. Of

course. it's referring back to the last
sentence of the first paragraph. We said,

now we thought at least some of it was
safe. And saying, no, it wasn't safe. So,

what are we going to say about this
sentence? Well, what about the little

word, so? So, can be an argument marker.
It can indicate that what follows it, is a

conclusion. But, is that what it's doing
here? I don't think so. As we just saw

like in, I don't think so, the word, so,
can be used in many ways, where it's not

an argument marker. And this is saying,
it's not so. It's not that way. So there's

no argument here. So that would get marked
with a big N for nothing. Now, what about

shocking, as it sounds, shocking? Well, is
shocking always bad? Remember we saw in

the first paragraph the word stunning.
Well, stunning stuns you, and shocking

shocks you. And it's telling you that you
have some kind of reaction. But it's not

telling you whether that reaction is due
to the thing being good, or the thing

being bad. You can get shocked by
something good or bad. It can be

shockingly good, or shockingly bad. And so
the word shocking by itself. Doesn't

indicate that it's e plus or e minus, so
again, you get a nothing. I mention it

only because it's clear that Robert
Redford thinks that shocking is bad, that

this should not have happened. He's
suggesting that it's bad. But the word

shocking, itself, is not an evaluative
word. What about, as it sounds? Well, he's

saying that it sounds that way. He's not
saying that it is that way. He's not

saying that it may sound that way. He's
saying it does sound that way, which is to

say, it seems that way to him. Which is
not to say it really is true, so he's

guarding the client. He's not saying that
it really is shocking. He's saying that it

seems shocking. So he's guarding the
client, in order to avoid someone

objecting that it's not really all that
shocking, after all. Say, well it sounds

shocking, and in order to make that part
of his argument mo re defensible. Because

it's not really essential to his argument,
that it's shocking or not. So what's

supposed to be shocking? Clinton's Bureau
of Land Management, or BLM, has approved

oil drilling within the monument. Notice
that there is no guarding at all here he

just states it. They did it they approved
oil drilling within the monument. And,

that's because it's not really something
he is arguing for. He's actually opposed

to it. It's something that his opponents
might support but he doesn't so, he

doesn't want to guard it since he wants to
say it just happened as a matter of fact

that they approved it so, there's I
nothing that we need to mark in that

particular sentence. Next sentence. BLM or
the Bureau of Land Management has given

Conoco Incorporated, a subsidiary of the
corporate giant DuPont permission to drill

for oil and gas in the heart of the new
monument. Well, there's a lot going on

here that we could mention, no, BLM has
given Conoco a subsidiary that explains

how they got permission by siding the BLM.
It's a subsidiary of the corporate giant

DuPont. He's certainly suggesting that
giant suggested that he's the small guy,

you know, up against the big corporate
giant. It might even has some connotation

of corporate giants being bad, but it
doesn't actually say that. And so, again

giant should be marked as nothing. What
about permission? To say that someone's

permitted to do something, is to say that
it's not wrong. That's what permitted

means. Now of course, if you're talking
about a legal permission, then to say that

it's permitted is to say that it's not
legally wrong. It's not forbidden by law.

It still might be morally wrong but at
least it's legally permitted means it's

not legally forbidden. And so if forbidden
and wrong are evaluative words, to deny

them and say it's not wrong looks like an
evaluative as well. But one of the

interesting things about this evaluative
word is it's clear whether it's positive

or negative. It means it's not wrong, but
that doesn't mean it is good or is right.

It simply means it's not forbidden. So,
it's not clear whether to put plus or

minus. I'll just leave it as a plain E in
that case, okay? Now, what did they have

permission to do to drill for oil and gas
in the heart of the new monument, okay?

That's what the permission was a
permission to do. The word to there is not

being used as an argument marker in this
case because you can't say they get

permission in order to, right? What they
gave them permission to do was to drill,

okay? What about drill? Well clearly
Robert Redford doesn't want them to drill.

So he thinks that's bad. But he doesn't
say it's bad. He just calls it drilling.

And they're drilling for oil and gas. Well
a lot of people think that oil and gas are

good things. But they don't say here that
they're good. They're simply saying that

they're oil and gas. The coolest part of
this cuz I think, is that metaphor at the

end. I mean you have this image that there
is this poor monument and somebody is

drilling right in its heart you know like,
what could be crueler than to drill in the

heart of a young monument the poor
innocent thing. So, this metaphor of the

heart is a nice rhetorical device that
fits with the drilling and is building up

people's opposition to what Redford wants
them to be opposed to. But it does

actually give an argument it's just
stating it in a flower or a metaphorical

way, it will get their feelings going,
okay? You may wonder. Notice he doesn't

say, you do wonder. He says you may
wonder. So this is, tell me, a guarding

term. So you should mark it with G. And
you may wonder, as I do, as is sometimes

used as an argument marker, but here
you're not saying that you wonder because

I do or I wonder because you do. The word
because can't be substituted for as, so to

say as I do is simply to conjoin the two
and say you wonder, and I also wonder or

you may wonder cuz I don't know whether
you are or not, and I do. And what we

wonder is how can this happen? Now we have
a rhetorical question. How can this

happen? Well that's obviously suggesting.
It shouldn't a happened, you know, how

could something have gone so wrong, as it
did in this case? But he didn't actually

say that. He simply asked the rhetorical
questions. An that's really the trick of

rhetorical questions. Notice there're a
bunch of them here. Wasn't the whole

purpose this? Didn't the President say he
was doing this? Then these three sentences

in a row are all rhetorical questions. So
what's the trick of rhetorical questions?

The point of a rhetorical question is to
get you to give the answer. If I say, how

can this happen and someone thinks to
themselves well the government messes up

all the time. Then you've got that
audience member who answered the question

to be saying it themselves and there's
nothing more forceful in an argument than

to get your audience to say it themselves
when you don't have to say it. And, that's

the trick of a rhetorical question and
what Redford is doing here is putting

three of them right in a row so that
you'll have to go along with him three

times in a row. And then that obviously
has an effect on your feeling like you're

with him. On you feeling like you agree
with him. That's the effect he's trying to

create by using these rhetorical
questions. Okay, what's the whole purpose

of creating? Notice the whole purpose is
to preserve. That phrase, the whole

purpose, goes with it. Cause we say the
purpose is, to preserve. And there. As

before, in the previous paragraph, we're
signaling an explanation cuz if you want

to explain why Clinton created the
monument, then the answer was, to preserve

the colorful cliffs and sweeping arches
and so on. So this is going to be an

explanation and to say that's the purpose
is to say that you created it because you

wanted to preserve or in order to
preserve. Then this whole purpose. Marks

the conclusion, and the, to preserve,
marks the premise. And we have a little

argument. He wanted to preserve his
colorful cliffs, therefore, he created the

monument. And we've got the conclusion
marked by the whole purpose, and the

premise or the reason, marked by the word
to. Okay. Preserve. We've already seen a

word a lot like that namely protect. And
we saw that when you protect something it

has to be good. Preserve also means to
preserve it against things that would harm

it. If harm is bad, then preserving and
protecting against harm must be good, so

we can make that as E plus. Its colorful
cliffs. Colorful sounds good, but of

course colorful just means it's colorful.
Sweeping arches, broad and sweeping and

curves, well that sounds good, that's
sounds beautiful the way he describes it.

And it surely is, as you can see in any
picture. But, sweeping doesn't itself say

it's good or beautiful or so on. Another
extraordinary we already saw

extraordinary. So colorful, sweeping, and
extraordinary. They're certainly being

used here by Redford to suggest that these
are good. But they're not openly saying

they're good. So we don't want to mark
those as evaluative words. But resources.

Now, resources are things that can give
you abilities. And when you have more

resources, you're able to do more. So,
abilities sounds like a good thing. And

resources are the things that make you
more able. That give you more freedom and

more power. So. At-least many people want
to mark that as a D+ work. Some of these

are going to be questionable. They are not
obvious as others, so I am suggesting one

way of interpreting this passage, and I
hope you are following the law. But if you

have some questions about the particular
cases, that's going to be natural. It's

partly coz our language is not totally
precised. Okay. Large scale mineral

development. Well, that's not bad if it's
done in the right places. So I don't think

that's evaluative either. Didn't the
President say that he was saving these

lands? Well didn't the President say that
he was saving these lands? Well that

suggests that he's assuring you that in
fact he was saving these lands. He should

know, whether that's what he was doing
since, after all, that's what he, you know

did himself. So he should be able to say,
what he did and why. Didn't the President

say he was saving? Saving could be marked
as E plus, just like protect and preserve?

Cuz it saves it from something bad
happening. These lands from mining

companies for our children and
grandchildren. Now, what about the word

for? This explains again why he is saving
these lands. He's saving them for

grandchildren and children. That means the
reason for saving these lands is to

benefit our grandchildren and children.
So, for is going to be a reason or premise

marker. It marks the reason or premise
that justifies saving the lands and

explains why in fact the president did
want to save the lands. Okay? So now we're

through with paragraph two. And I hope
you're kind of getting the feel for how to

do close analysis. And so, what I want to
do now is give you a chance to practice

the skill on your own. We'll put up
paragraph three, mark certain words. And

your task in the exercise, will be to put
the right letter next to, or to indicate

the function of that word in the
paragraph. And the letter you put should

be either R or P for premise marker, C for
conclusion marker, A for assuring, G for

guarding, D for discounting, E+, E- for
positive and negative evaluation. And you

can go through the third paragraph
yourself in the exercise.