0:00:03.280,0:00:08.712
Welcome back. Now you've done paragraph[br]three yourselves and we're going to go on

0:00:08.712,0:00:14.214
to paragraph four. Might seem like were[br]doing an awful lot of this, but remember,

0:00:14.214,0:00:19.715
the only way to learn close analysis is to[br]practice, practice, practice, practice,

0:00:19.715,0:00:25.287
practice over and over again on as many[br]passages as you can find. So we're going

0:00:24.869,0:00:30.232
to spend one more lecture going though[br]paragraphs four and five of Robert

0:00:30.232,0:00:35.803
Redford's piece in the Washington Post[br]from 1997. The title was, A Piece of God's

0:00:35.803,0:00:42.850
Handiwork.. In paragraph four starts,[br]sounds like Washington double-speak to me.

0:00:42.850,0:00:47.728
Well, what is it that sounds like[br]Washington double-speak to him. It's the

0:00:47.728,0:00:52.739
sentence at the end of the previous[br]paragraph that you analyzed and, that's

0:00:52.739,0:00:58.152
the claim that they issued the permit[br]without a full review using an abbreviated

0:00:58.152,0:01:03.364
review and they didn't even look at the[br]leases on other federal lands. So, he's

0:01:03.364,0:01:08.376
saying that sounds like the kind of thing[br]Washington does when they double-speak.

0:01:08.777,0:01:13.969
Double-speak is obviously a metaphor.[br]Right? It's a metaphor for saying one

0:01:13.969,0:01:19.555
thing to one person, another thing to[br]another person or sometimes, saying one

0:01:19.555,0:01:25.361
thing that seems to mean one thing when[br]what they really mean is another thing.

0:01:25.361,0:01:31.167
But however you interpret the metaphor of[br]double-speak, it's not good. So we can

0:01:31.167,0:01:37.046
indicate that double-speaking is a[br]negative evaluation and it's a metaphor,

0:01:37.046,0:01:42.632
but clearly negative in its meeting. You[br]wouldn't say someone who's speaking

0:01:42.632,0:01:49.307
properly is double-speak. Notice however,[br]that he has this phrase sounds like and it

0:01:49.307,0:01:55.574
sounds like it, to him, what sounds like[br]doing. Well, he's not saying that it is

0:01:55.574,0:02:01.488
Washington double-speak. So he's guarding[br]it. He's weakening the claim. He's not

0:02:01.488,0:02:07.606
saying it is. He's saying it sounds like[br]and so that can be labeled as a guarding

0:02:07.606,0:02:15.570
term. Okay. So he's guarded that claim,[br]but now he's going to go on and argue

0:02:15.570,0:02:23.467
against the plan that Washington was[br]using. I've spent considerable time on

0:02:23.467,0:02:29.014
these extraordinary lands for years. I've[br]spent for years. Let's just circle that

0:02:29.014,0:02:33.529
whole thing to indicate that whole phrase,[br]cuz it's just a ll doing the same thing.

0:02:33.529,0:02:38.687
What's it doing? It's assuring you. You[br]say, because I have spent so much time on

0:02:38.687,0:02:43.629
these lands, I spent so many years on[br]them. You can trust me to know what's

0:02:43.629,0:02:48.972
going on. I've got the evidence. Notice,[br]like other assuring terms, it's not giving

0:02:48.972,0:02:53.780
you the evidence. It's saying, you ought[br]to trust me, because I've got the

0:02:53.780,0:02:59.056
evidence. I've had the experience. So it's[br]a perfect example of assuring, because

0:02:59.056,0:03:04.600
it's saying that he has reasons without[br]actually giving the reasons and that's why

0:03:04.600,0:03:10.344
you can't question his reasons cuz you[br]haven't spent considerable time on those

0:03:10.344,0:03:15.764
extraordinary lands. And, of course, he[br]follows that up with another assuring

0:03:15.764,0:03:20.916
term. He says, and I know. When you say, I[br]know, that's an assuring term, a mental

0:03:20.916,0:03:26.711
assuring term, because it's describing the[br]mental state as being one of knowledge.

0:03:26.711,0:03:32.577
Knowledge implies truth, and to say I know[br]it is to imply that it's true to ensure

0:03:32.577,0:03:38.086
you that it's true. Okay? But what does he[br]know? He knows that an oil rig in their

0:03:38.086,0:03:43.782
midst, would have a major impact. And what[br]about that? A major impact. Okay? Now he's

0:03:43.782,0:03:49.003
clearly saying it would be a bad impact,[br]but does he come out and say it's bad? No,

0:03:49.003,0:03:54.755
he just says it's major. Okay? So it's not[br]an evaluative term that would be labeled

0:03:54.755,0:04:00.556
as nothing if nothing is an option. So,[br]he's clearly suggesting that it's bad, but

0:04:00.556,0:04:06.139
he's not saying it, so it shouldn't be[br]marked as an evaluative term, okay? Next,

0:04:06.139,0:04:11.939
what's more. Well, what's more is kind of[br]a conjunction, but what came before this

0:04:11.939,0:04:17.736
was an argument that it would have a major[br]impact based on his assurance. And so when

0:04:17.736,0:04:22.909
he says, once more, he's suggesting that[br]what's going to come next is yet another

0:04:22.909,0:04:28.150
argument for why we shouldn't have these,[br]these permits issued. He's going to tell

0:04:28.150,0:04:33.324
you other bad things about them. So that[br]can be a premise marker, because what

0:04:33.324,0:04:39.193
comes after it is the premise. They want[br]to drill to find oil. Well, we can say, to

0:04:39.193,0:04:45.126
find oil, it's in order to find oil, that[br]is going to explain why they want to

0:04:45.126,0:04:51.446
drill. It's a theleological explanation as[br]we saw in an earlier lecture and so that

0:04:51.446,0:04:57.688
is going to be a reason marker, because[br]their desire to find oil is what explains

0:04:57.688,0:05:06.910
their desire to want to drill. Okay?[br]Inevitably. What's that? Assuring. It's

0:05:06.910,0:05:12.681
assuring you that it's obviously true.[br]There's no way around it. It is

0:05:12.681,0:05:19.038
inevitable. What's inevitable? More rigs,[br]more roads, new pipelines, toxic waste,

0:05:19.038,0:05:25.548
and bright lights would follow to get the[br]oil out. Okay? He's assuring you that all

0:05:25.548,0:05:31.225
of those things are going to happen. The[br]previous argument, before the what's more,

0:05:31.225,0:05:36.974
was simply an oil rig. Notice it's just an[br]oil rig, one oil rig up there in that

0:05:36.974,0:05:42.432
sentence, but now we've got more rigs,[br]more roads, new pipelines. So if an oil

0:05:42.432,0:05:48.181
rig has a major impact, all of this other[br]stuff's going to a lot more of an impact.

0:05:48.181,0:05:54.221
That's the point of the what's more. He's[br]adding additional reasons why the permits

0:05:54.221,0:05:59.698
should not be issued. Okay? And they would[br]follow, that means it's going to follow

0:05:59.698,0:06:05.298
what? In time. It's just temporal. It's[br]not saying anything more than it's going

0:06:04.867,0:06:10.467
to follow at a later time, but they're[br]gonna follow to get the oil out. That

0:06:10.467,0:06:15.852
explains why they would follow, because,[br]right, you would need them in order to get

0:06:15.852,0:06:21.236
the oil out. So that's going to be an[br]argument marker itself. Is it a reason

0:06:21.236,0:06:27.370
marker or is it a conclusion marker? Well,[br]the conclusion is that all that's going to

0:06:27.370,0:06:33.082
follow. Right? And the premise is that[br]it's needed in order to get the oil out.

0:06:33.082,0:06:39.212
So this is going to be a premise marker.[br]And the conclusion is that you get all

0:06:39.212,0:06:45.455
that stuff, the pipelines, the roads, the[br]waste and so on. Okay? So those are his

0:06:45.455,0:06:52.994
reasons against giving a permit and then[br]he says, the BLM couldn't see this. Okay?

0:06:52.994,0:06:59.685
He just states it as a fact. But, what's[br]the but doing there? Remember, what kind

0:06:59.251,0:07:04.886
of word a but is. But is a discounting[br]term. He's answering an objection. The

0:07:04.886,0:07:10.666
objection is, well, you say all that would[br]follow, but the BLM would disagree with

0:07:10.666,0:07:16.590
you and they looked at it very carefully[br]and they're an authority or an expert. So,

0:07:16.590,0:07:21.947
the answer to that objection is the US[br]Fish and Wildlife Service and th e

0:07:21.947,0:07:27.531
Environmental Protection Agency did see[br]this. Notice that what comes after the but

0:07:27.531,0:07:32.586
is more important than what came before[br]it. What he's doing is saying that there's

0:07:32.586,0:07:37.456
a contrast between what the BLM couldn't[br]see and what the US Fish and Wildlife

0:07:37.456,0:07:42.327
Service and the Environmental Protective[br]Agency did see, but in addition to the

0:07:42.327,0:07:47.012
contrast between those two, he's also[br]saying it's more important that the US

0:07:47.012,0:07:51.575
Fish and Wildlife Service and the[br]Environmental Protection Agency did see

0:07:51.575,0:07:59.008
it. Okay? So what comes after the but is[br]taken to be more important. And what did

0:07:59.008,0:08:04.148
they see? Both of these agencies[br]recognized. Recognized implies, you can't

0:08:04.148,0:08:09.645
recognize things that aren't true you[br]know, if you see somebody and you say, I

0:08:09.645,0:08:15.285
recognize my sister and it wasn't your[br]sister, you didn't really recognize them.

0:08:15.285,0:08:20.282
So to say you recognize is to assure[br]people that it's really true. The

0:08:20.282,0:08:26.297
devastating. Now devastating can't be[br]good. so that's E-, effects of extensive

0:08:26.297,0:08:31.718
oil drilling. Extensive, is that bad? No,[br]extensive oil drilling is good in the

0:08:31.718,0:08:37.284
right places. It gives us the kind of[br]energy we need to be able to accomplish

0:08:37.284,0:08:43.139
the goals that we want. Maybe you wish you[br]didn't need extensive oil drilling, but,

0:08:43.139,0:08:49.066
if you need it, then it's good when it's[br]done in the right place. And that drilling

0:08:49.066,0:08:54.920
would have a devastating effects on this[br]area. And then those two agencies urge the

0:08:54.920,0:09:02.022
BLM to refuse to allow it. Okay. Why? In[br]order to protect the monument. And again,

0:09:02.022,0:09:06.999
we've seen this kind of argument[br]repeatedly at several points during this

0:09:06.999,0:09:12.917
particular ad. That's saying that the goal[br]is to protect the monument and that's what

0:09:12.917,0:09:18.096
justifies urging the BLM to refuse to[br]allow it. So this is going to be a premise

0:09:18.096,0:09:23.544
marker. We've seen in order to protect, in[br]order to preserve because we want to

0:09:23.544,0:09:28.656
protect, and so on. He keeps repeating[br]that. That's not a bad thing. Many times

0:09:28.656,0:09:33.658
when someone's giving an argument, they[br]repeat pretty much the same words as in

0:09:33.658,0:09:38.112
other areas, because they're giving[br]several arguments for a single conclusion.

0:09:38.112,0:09:42.508
We'll actually see how those different[br]reasons ca n fit together in the next

0:09:42.508,0:09:46.962
section of the course, but for now, all[br]we're doing is marking the words in an

0:09:46.962,0:09:53.324
order to as a premise marker. We've[br]finished four paragraphs. All right. We're

0:09:53.324,0:10:00.648
almost done. Yeah. Yes . Now we're on to[br]paragraph five. And it starts, maybe the

0:10:00.648,0:10:06.914
problem comes from giving management[br]responsibility for this monument to the

0:10:06.914,0:10:12.325
BLM. What about the word maybe? The word[br]maybe is about as clear a case as you can

0:10:12.325,0:10:17.411
get of a guarding term. It's saying it[br]might be the case, it might not be the

0:10:17.411,0:10:23.032
case. I'm not going to definitely claim[br]that's where the problem comes from. I'm

0:10:23.032,0:10:28.385
just suggesting that maybe so if somebody[br]comes along and says that not's really

0:10:28.385,0:10:33.270
true, I'm going to say, well maybe it's[br]true, that's all I was claiming, and so

0:10:33.270,0:10:39.318
I'm now able to defend my premise. Okay?[br]Problem. What about problem? Got to be E-,

0:10:39.318,0:10:44.630
right? Another clear example, because you[br]can't have good things if there are

0:10:44.630,0:10:50.152
problems. Sure, you can have problems on[br]math tests that are good, but that's not

0:10:50.152,0:10:55.813
the kind of problem we're talking about[br]here. These kinds of problems are bad. And

0:10:55.813,0:11:02.446
so that word gets marked as E-. So, the[br]problem comes from namely, is explained

0:11:02.446,0:11:09.630
by, giving management responsibility for[br]this monument to the BLM. So it comes

0:11:09.630,0:11:16.925
from, can get marked as a premise marker.[br]It's giving management responsibility to

0:11:16.925,0:11:21.810
the BLM that explains why there's a[br]problem in the first place and that could

0:11:21.810,0:11:26.744
be put in the form of an argument. That[br]explanation could. Okay. So y is giving

0:11:26.744,0:11:31.589
management responsibility to the BLM,[br]create a problem, because the next

0:11:31.589,0:11:36.980
sentence tells you, this is the BLM's[br]first national monument. This is the first

0:11:36.980,0:11:42.303
time they've ever done this. Almost all[br]the other monuments are managed by the

0:11:42.303,0:11:47.626
National Park Service. Okay? Nothing wrong[br]in itself with being the first, there

0:11:47.626,0:11:52.539
always has to be a first, so there's[br]nothing evaluative there. What about

0:11:52.539,0:11:59.704
almost all? Clearly guarding. Right?[br]Because it's not all, it's almost all, so

0:11:59.704,0:12:07.747
the claim is more defensible. Almost all[br]the others are managed by the National

0:12:07.747,0:12:15.587
Park Service. The Park Ser vices' mission[br]is to protect the resources under its

0:12:15.587,0:12:23.732
care. Okay? Protect good resources, good,[br]so those both get E+. While. What about

0:12:23.732,0:12:30.262
the word while? It's not completely clear.[br]You could read this as simply setting up a

0:12:30.262,0:12:35.420
contrast between the parks service's[br]mission and the bureau's mission, but you

0:12:35.420,0:12:40.487
can also read it as responding to an[br]objection. Well, doesn't the government

0:12:40.487,0:12:45.512
protect those resources? And the answer[br]is, well, the Park Service does, but the

0:12:45.512,0:12:50.799
bureau has a different role. The bureau[br]has always sought to accommodate economic

0:12:50.799,0:12:56.020
uses. Okay? So if you read that while as[br]but and you replace it with but, it seems

0:12:56.020,0:13:01.307
to make sense. The park services' mission[br]is to protect, but the bureau has always,

0:13:01.307,0:13:06.724
it looks like you can replace it with a[br]discounting term which means that while is

0:13:06.724,0:13:12.810
functioning here as a discounting term.[br]Okay? The bureau has always saw it, no

0:13:12.810,0:13:20.178
guardian there. It's always sought that,[br]right. To accommodate economic uses of

0:13:20.178,0:13:29.288
those resources under its care. Even so,[br]starts the next sentence. What is even so

0:13:29.288,0:13:35.275
doing? Well, even so is a discounting[br]term, because it's discounting an

0:13:35.275,0:13:41.088
objection. The objection is, well they've[br]always sought to accommodate those uses.

0:13:41.088,0:13:46.684
Well, then how do you explain the fact[br]that they got off to such a good start?

0:13:46.684,0:13:52.206
They seem to be, okay? They seem to be,[br]that's a guarding term. It's not saying

0:13:52.206,0:13:57.752
they were. It's saying they seem to. We're[br]getting off to a good start, good. Boy,

0:13:57.752,0:14:03.339
there's an evaluative plus. You can't beat[br]that for a clear evaluative plus. To a

0:14:03.339,0:14:08.647
good start by enlisting broad public[br]involvement in developing a management

0:14:08.647,0:14:14.217
plan for the area. Well, what was good[br]about it? They enlisted broad public

0:14:14.217,0:14:20.940
involvement, therefore, it was good. Looks[br]like by enlisting could be a premise

0:14:20.940,0:14:26.265
marker. The premise is enlist, they[br]enlisted broad public involvement,

0:14:26.265,0:14:34.265
therefore, they got off to a good start.[br]Yet. What's she at? Another discounting

0:14:34.265,0:14:38.751
term. The agency's decision to allow[br]drilling in the monument completely

0:14:38.751,0:14:43.361
undercuts this process just as its[br]beginning. The objection is, so if they

0:14:43.361,0:14:47.908
got off to a good start, what's the[br]problem? If they enlisted broad public

0:14:47.908,0:14:53.462
involvement, what's the problem? Well,[br]that's the objection and the response is,

0:14:53.462,0:14:59.091
now they've decided to allow drilling in[br]the monument and that completely undercuts

0:14:59.091,0:15:03.581
the process that did enlist public[br]involvement. Right? So, the yet is

0:15:03.581,0:15:08.540
discounting the objection that says,[br]there's no problem here, they're doing

0:15:08.540,0:15:13.365
just fine, they got broad public[br]involvement. They're saying the response

0:15:13.365,0:15:18.726
to that objection is, but now they have[br]not got public involvement. They're doing

0:15:18.726,0:15:24.994
it without a complete review and so on as[br]mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The

0:15:24.994,0:15:30.412
agency's decision to allow oil drilling in[br]the monument, completely, no guarding,

0:15:30.412,0:15:35.625
right, completely undercuts. When it's[br]that strong a word, like completely, you

0:15:35.625,0:15:40.647
can almost say it, I'm assuring you, it's[br]not just partially undercutting it's

0:15:40.647,0:15:45.760
completely undercutting. That's a way of[br]making you confident that it really does,

0:15:45.760,0:15:50.937
at least partially undercut the process[br]and undercuts sounds like something bad. I

0:15:50.937,0:15:55.861
suppose you might not want to market as[br]evaluative because you know, you could

0:15:55.861,0:16:01.063
undercut a bad process and that would be a[br]good thing. So, literally you probably

0:16:01.063,0:16:06.375
should not mark that as evaluative, but[br]it's clear what Robert Redford thinks

0:16:06.375,0:16:12.014
about undercutting this process. And now,[br]just. Just stands for justice, doesn't it?

0:16:12.014,0:16:17.444
No. Remember from the very first word of[br]this op-ed, just is nothing here. It

0:16:17.444,0:16:22.729
means, at the same time when it was[br]beginning. It's not an evaluative term,

0:16:22.729,0:16:28.811
even though just sometimes means something[br]about being just or fair or good. Here, it

0:16:28.811,0:16:34.379
doesn't mean that at all. So, we're back[br]to the very word that we began this op-ed

0:16:34.566,0:16:39.686
with, and so that seems like a good place[br]to stop. I'll stop marking here. There are

0:16:39.686,0:16:44.618
other things you could mark. There are[br]other things to discuss. These paragraphs,

0:16:44.618,0:16:49.862
these op eds, are always extremely complex[br]and interesting to try to get the detail

0:16:49.862,0:16:54.919
straight, but I'll give you a chance to[br]look at the next three paragraphs. They're

0:16:54.919,0:16:59.414
all pretty short. And look at those p[br]aragraphs and see if you can do a close

0:16:59.414,0:17:04.346
analysis on those, because as I've[br]emphasized several times, the best. Indeed

0:17:04.346,0:17:10.143
the only way to learn close analysis is to[br]practice, practice, practice, practice,