1
00:00:03,280 --> 00:00:08,712
Welcome back. Now you've done paragraph
three yourselves and we're going to go on

2
00:00:08,712 --> 00:00:14,214
to paragraph four. Might seem like were
doing an awful lot of this, but remember,

3
00:00:14,214 --> 00:00:19,715
the only way to learn close analysis is to
practice, practice, practice, practice,

4
00:00:19,715 --> 00:00:25,287
practice over and over again on as many
passages as you can find. So we're going

5
00:00:24,869 --> 00:00:30,232
to spend one more lecture going though
paragraphs four and five of Robert

6
00:00:30,232 --> 00:00:35,803
Redford's piece in the Washington Post
from 1997. The title was, A Piece of God's

7
00:00:35,803 --> 00:00:42,850
Handiwork.. In paragraph four starts,
sounds like Washington double-speak to me.

8
00:00:42,850 --> 00:00:47,728
Well, what is it that sounds like
Washington double-speak to him. It's the

9
00:00:47,728 --> 00:00:52,739
sentence at the end of the previous
paragraph that you analyzed and, that's

10
00:00:52,739 --> 00:00:58,152
the claim that they issued the permit
without a full review using an abbreviated

11
00:00:58,152 --> 00:01:03,364
review and they didn't even look at the
leases on other federal lands. So, he's

12
00:01:03,364 --> 00:01:08,376
saying that sounds like the kind of thing
Washington does when they double-speak.

13
00:01:08,777 --> 00:01:13,969
Double-speak is obviously a metaphor.
Right? It's a metaphor for saying one

14
00:01:13,969 --> 00:01:19,555
thing to one person, another thing to
another person or sometimes, saying one

15
00:01:19,555 --> 00:01:25,361
thing that seems to mean one thing when
what they really mean is another thing.

16
00:01:25,361 --> 00:01:31,167
But however you interpret the metaphor of
double-speak, it's not good. So we can

17
00:01:31,167 --> 00:01:37,046
indicate that double-speaking is a
negative evaluation and it's a metaphor,

18
00:01:37,046 --> 00:01:42,632
but clearly negative in its meeting. You
wouldn't say someone who's speaking

19
00:01:42,632 --> 00:01:49,307
properly is double-speak. Notice however,
that he has this phrase sounds like and it

20
00:01:49,307 --> 00:01:55,574
sounds like it, to him, what sounds like
doing. Well, he's not saying that it is

21
00:01:55,574 --> 00:02:01,488
Washington double-speak. So he's guarding
it. He's weakening the claim. He's not

22
00:02:01,488 --> 00:02:07,606
saying it is. He's saying it sounds like
and so that can be labeled as a guarding

23
00:02:07,606 --> 00:02:15,570
term. Okay. So he's guarded that claim,
but now he's going to go on and argue

24
00:02:15,570 --> 00:02:23,467
against the plan that Washington was
using. I've spent considerable time on

25
00:02:23,467 --> 00:02:29,014
these extraordinary lands for years. I've
spent for years. Let's just circle that

26
00:02:29,014 --> 00:02:33,529
whole thing to indicate that whole phrase,
cuz it's just a ll doing the same thing.

27
00:02:33,529 --> 00:02:38,687
What's it doing? It's assuring you. You
say, because I have spent so much time on

28
00:02:38,687 --> 00:02:43,629
these lands, I spent so many years on
them. You can trust me to know what's

29
00:02:43,629 --> 00:02:48,972
going on. I've got the evidence. Notice,
like other assuring terms, it's not giving

30
00:02:48,972 --> 00:02:53,780
you the evidence. It's saying, you ought
to trust me, because I've got the

31
00:02:53,780 --> 00:02:59,056
evidence. I've had the experience. So it's
a perfect example of assuring, because

32
00:02:59,056 --> 00:03:04,600
it's saying that he has reasons without
actually giving the reasons and that's why

33
00:03:04,600 --> 00:03:10,344
you can't question his reasons cuz you
haven't spent considerable time on those

34
00:03:10,344 --> 00:03:15,764
extraordinary lands. And, of course, he
follows that up with another assuring

35
00:03:15,764 --> 00:03:20,916
term. He says, and I know. When you say, I
know, that's an assuring term, a mental

36
00:03:20,916 --> 00:03:26,711
assuring term, because it's describing the
mental state as being one of knowledge.

37
00:03:26,711 --> 00:03:32,577
Knowledge implies truth, and to say I know
it is to imply that it's true to ensure

38
00:03:32,577 --> 00:03:38,086
you that it's true. Okay? But what does he
know? He knows that an oil rig in their

39
00:03:38,086 --> 00:03:43,782
midst, would have a major impact. And what
about that? A major impact. Okay? Now he's

40
00:03:43,782 --> 00:03:49,003
clearly saying it would be a bad impact,
but does he come out and say it's bad? No,

41
00:03:49,003 --> 00:03:54,755
he just says it's major. Okay? So it's not
an evaluative term that would be labeled

42
00:03:54,755 --> 00:04:00,556
as nothing if nothing is an option. So,
he's clearly suggesting that it's bad, but

43
00:04:00,556 --> 00:04:06,139
he's not saying it, so it shouldn't be
marked as an evaluative term, okay? Next,

44
00:04:06,139 --> 00:04:11,939
what's more. Well, what's more is kind of
a conjunction, but what came before this

45
00:04:11,939 --> 00:04:17,736
was an argument that it would have a major
impact based on his assurance. And so when

46
00:04:17,736 --> 00:04:22,909
he says, once more, he's suggesting that
what's going to come next is yet another

47
00:04:22,909 --> 00:04:28,150
argument for why we shouldn't have these,
these permits issued. He's going to tell

48
00:04:28,150 --> 00:04:33,324
you other bad things about them. So that
can be a premise marker, because what

49
00:04:33,324 --> 00:04:39,193
comes after it is the premise. They want
to drill to find oil. Well, we can say, to

50
00:04:39,193 --> 00:04:45,126
find oil, it's in order to find oil, that
is going to explain why they want to

51
00:04:45,126 --> 00:04:51,446
drill. It's a theleological explanation as
we saw in an earlier lecture and so that

52
00:04:51,446 --> 00:04:57,688
is going to be a reason marker, because
their desire to find oil is what explains

53
00:04:57,688 --> 00:05:06,910
their desire to want to drill. Okay?
Inevitably. What's that? Assuring. It's

54
00:05:06,910 --> 00:05:12,681
assuring you that it's obviously true.
There's no way around it. It is

55
00:05:12,681 --> 00:05:19,038
inevitable. What's inevitable? More rigs,
more roads, new pipelines, toxic waste,

56
00:05:19,038 --> 00:05:25,548
and bright lights would follow to get the
oil out. Okay? He's assuring you that all

57
00:05:25,548 --> 00:05:31,225
of those things are going to happen. The
previous argument, before the what's more,

58
00:05:31,225 --> 00:05:36,974
was simply an oil rig. Notice it's just an
oil rig, one oil rig up there in that

59
00:05:36,974 --> 00:05:42,432
sentence, but now we've got more rigs,
more roads, new pipelines. So if an oil

60
00:05:42,432 --> 00:05:48,181
rig has a major impact, all of this other
stuff's going to a lot more of an impact.

61
00:05:48,181 --> 00:05:54,221
That's the point of the what's more. He's
adding additional reasons why the permits

62
00:05:54,221 --> 00:05:59,698
should not be issued. Okay? And they would
follow, that means it's going to follow

63
00:05:59,698 --> 00:06:05,298
what? In time. It's just temporal. It's
not saying anything more than it's going

64
00:06:04,867 --> 00:06:10,467
to follow at a later time, but they're
gonna follow to get the oil out. That

65
00:06:10,467 --> 00:06:15,852
explains why they would follow, because,
right, you would need them in order to get

66
00:06:15,852 --> 00:06:21,236
the oil out. So that's going to be an
argument marker itself. Is it a reason

67
00:06:21,236 --> 00:06:27,370
marker or is it a conclusion marker? Well,
the conclusion is that all that's going to

68
00:06:27,370 --> 00:06:33,082
follow. Right? And the premise is that
it's needed in order to get the oil out.

69
00:06:33,082 --> 00:06:39,212
So this is going to be a premise marker.
And the conclusion is that you get all

70
00:06:39,212 --> 00:06:45,455
that stuff, the pipelines, the roads, the
waste and so on. Okay? So those are his

71
00:06:45,455 --> 00:06:52,994
reasons against giving a permit and then
he says, the BLM couldn't see this. Okay?

72
00:06:52,994 --> 00:06:59,685
He just states it as a fact. But, what's
the but doing there? Remember, what kind

73
00:06:59,251 --> 00:07:04,886
of word a but is. But is a discounting
term. He's answering an objection. The

74
00:07:04,886 --> 00:07:10,666
objection is, well, you say all that would
follow, but the BLM would disagree with

75
00:07:10,666 --> 00:07:16,590
you and they looked at it very carefully
and they're an authority or an expert. So,

76
00:07:16,590 --> 00:07:21,947
the answer to that objection is the US
Fish and Wildlife Service and th e

77
00:07:21,947 --> 00:07:27,531
Environmental Protection Agency did see
this. Notice that what comes after the but

78
00:07:27,531 --> 00:07:32,586
is more important than what came before
it. What he's doing is saying that there's

79
00:07:32,586 --> 00:07:37,456
a contrast between what the BLM couldn't
see and what the US Fish and Wildlife

80
00:07:37,456 --> 00:07:42,327
Service and the Environmental Protective
Agency did see, but in addition to the

81
00:07:42,327 --> 00:07:47,012
contrast between those two, he's also
saying it's more important that the US

82
00:07:47,012 --> 00:07:51,575
Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Environmental Protection Agency did see

83
00:07:51,575 --> 00:07:59,008
it. Okay? So what comes after the but is
taken to be more important. And what did

84
00:07:59,008 --> 00:08:04,148
they see? Both of these agencies
recognized. Recognized implies, you can't

85
00:08:04,148 --> 00:08:09,645
recognize things that aren't true you
know, if you see somebody and you say, I

86
00:08:09,645 --> 00:08:15,285
recognize my sister and it wasn't your
sister, you didn't really recognize them.

87
00:08:15,285 --> 00:08:20,282
So to say you recognize is to assure
people that it's really true. The

88
00:08:20,282 --> 00:08:26,297
devastating. Now devastating can't be
good. so that's E-, effects of extensive

89
00:08:26,297 --> 00:08:31,718
oil drilling. Extensive, is that bad? No,
extensive oil drilling is good in the

90
00:08:31,718 --> 00:08:37,284
right places. It gives us the kind of
energy we need to be able to accomplish

91
00:08:37,284 --> 00:08:43,139
the goals that we want. Maybe you wish you
didn't need extensive oil drilling, but,

92
00:08:43,139 --> 00:08:49,066
if you need it, then it's good when it's
done in the right place. And that drilling

93
00:08:49,066 --> 00:08:54,920
would have a devastating effects on this
area. And then those two agencies urge the

94
00:08:54,920 --> 00:09:02,022
BLM to refuse to allow it. Okay. Why? In
order to protect the monument. And again,

95
00:09:02,022 --> 00:09:06,999
we've seen this kind of argument
repeatedly at several points during this

96
00:09:06,999 --> 00:09:12,917
particular ad. That's saying that the goal
is to protect the monument and that's what

97
00:09:12,917 --> 00:09:18,096
justifies urging the BLM to refuse to
allow it. So this is going to be a premise

98
00:09:18,096 --> 00:09:23,544
marker. We've seen in order to protect, in
order to preserve because we want to

99
00:09:23,544 --> 00:09:28,656
protect, and so on. He keeps repeating
that. That's not a bad thing. Many times

100
00:09:28,656 --> 00:09:33,658
when someone's giving an argument, they
repeat pretty much the same words as in

101
00:09:33,658 --> 00:09:38,112
other areas, because they're giving
several arguments for a single conclusion.

102
00:09:38,112 --> 00:09:42,508
We'll actually see how those different
reasons ca n fit together in the next

103
00:09:42,508 --> 00:09:46,962
section of the course, but for now, all
we're doing is marking the words in an

104
00:09:46,962 --> 00:09:53,324
order to as a premise marker. We've
finished four paragraphs. All right. We're

105
00:09:53,324 --> 00:10:00,648
almost done. Yeah. Yes . Now we're on to
paragraph five. And it starts, maybe the

106
00:10:00,648 --> 00:10:06,914
problem comes from giving management
responsibility for this monument to the

107
00:10:06,914 --> 00:10:12,325
BLM. What about the word maybe? The word
maybe is about as clear a case as you can

108
00:10:12,325 --> 00:10:17,411
get of a guarding term. It's saying it
might be the case, it might not be the

109
00:10:17,411 --> 00:10:23,032
case. I'm not going to definitely claim
that's where the problem comes from. I'm

110
00:10:23,032 --> 00:10:28,385
just suggesting that maybe so if somebody
comes along and says that not's really

111
00:10:28,385 --> 00:10:33,270
true, I'm going to say, well maybe it's
true, that's all I was claiming, and so

112
00:10:33,270 --> 00:10:39,318
I'm now able to defend my premise. Okay?
Problem. What about problem? Got to be E-,

113
00:10:39,318 --> 00:10:44,630
right? Another clear example, because you
can't have good things if there are

114
00:10:44,630 --> 00:10:50,152
problems. Sure, you can have problems on
math tests that are good, but that's not

115
00:10:50,152 --> 00:10:55,813
the kind of problem we're talking about
here. These kinds of problems are bad. And

116
00:10:55,813 --> 00:11:02,446
so that word gets marked as E-. So, the
problem comes from namely, is explained

117
00:11:02,446 --> 00:11:09,630
by, giving management responsibility for
this monument to the BLM. So it comes

118
00:11:09,630 --> 00:11:16,925
from, can get marked as a premise marker.
It's giving management responsibility to

119
00:11:16,925 --> 00:11:21,810
the BLM that explains why there's a
problem in the first place and that could

120
00:11:21,810 --> 00:11:26,744
be put in the form of an argument. That
explanation could. Okay. So y is giving

121
00:11:26,744 --> 00:11:31,589
management responsibility to the BLM,
create a problem, because the next

122
00:11:31,589 --> 00:11:36,980
sentence tells you, this is the BLM's
first national monument. This is the first

123
00:11:36,980 --> 00:11:42,303
time they've ever done this. Almost all
the other monuments are managed by the

124
00:11:42,303 --> 00:11:47,626
National Park Service. Okay? Nothing wrong
in itself with being the first, there

125
00:11:47,626 --> 00:11:52,539
always has to be a first, so there's
nothing evaluative there. What about

126
00:11:52,539 --> 00:11:59,704
almost all? Clearly guarding. Right?
Because it's not all, it's almost all, so

127
00:11:59,704 --> 00:12:07,747
the claim is more defensible. Almost all
the others are managed by the National

128
00:12:07,747 --> 00:12:15,587
Park Service. The Park Ser vices' mission
is to protect the resources under its

129
00:12:15,587 --> 00:12:23,732
care. Okay? Protect good resources, good,
so those both get E+. While. What about

130
00:12:23,732 --> 00:12:30,262
the word while? It's not completely clear.
You could read this as simply setting up a

131
00:12:30,262 --> 00:12:35,420
contrast between the parks service's
mission and the bureau's mission, but you

132
00:12:35,420 --> 00:12:40,487
can also read it as responding to an
objection. Well, doesn't the government

133
00:12:40,487 --> 00:12:45,512
protect those resources? And the answer
is, well, the Park Service does, but the

134
00:12:45,512 --> 00:12:50,799
bureau has a different role. The bureau
has always sought to accommodate economic

135
00:12:50,799 --> 00:12:56,020
uses. Okay? So if you read that while as
but and you replace it with but, it seems

136
00:12:56,020 --> 00:13:01,307
to make sense. The park services' mission
is to protect, but the bureau has always,

137
00:13:01,307 --> 00:13:06,724
it looks like you can replace it with a
discounting term which means that while is

138
00:13:06,724 --> 00:13:12,810
functioning here as a discounting term.
Okay? The bureau has always saw it, no

139
00:13:12,810 --> 00:13:20,178
guardian there. It's always sought that,
right. To accommodate economic uses of

140
00:13:20,178 --> 00:13:29,288
those resources under its care. Even so,
starts the next sentence. What is even so

141
00:13:29,288 --> 00:13:35,275
doing? Well, even so is a discounting
term, because it's discounting an

142
00:13:35,275 --> 00:13:41,088
objection. The objection is, well they've
always sought to accommodate those uses.

143
00:13:41,088 --> 00:13:46,684
Well, then how do you explain the fact
that they got off to such a good start?

144
00:13:46,684 --> 00:13:52,206
They seem to be, okay? They seem to be,
that's a guarding term. It's not saying

145
00:13:52,206 --> 00:13:57,752
they were. It's saying they seem to. We're
getting off to a good start, good. Boy,

146
00:13:57,752 --> 00:14:03,339
there's an evaluative plus. You can't beat
that for a clear evaluative plus. To a

147
00:14:03,339 --> 00:14:08,647
good start by enlisting broad public
involvement in developing a management

148
00:14:08,647 --> 00:14:14,217
plan for the area. Well, what was good
about it? They enlisted broad public

149
00:14:14,217 --> 00:14:20,940
involvement, therefore, it was good. Looks
like by enlisting could be a premise

150
00:14:20,940 --> 00:14:26,265
marker. The premise is enlist, they
enlisted broad public involvement,

151
00:14:26,265 --> 00:14:34,265
therefore, they got off to a good start.
Yet. What's she at? Another discounting

152
00:14:34,265 --> 00:14:38,751
term. The agency's decision to allow
drilling in the monument completely

153
00:14:38,751 --> 00:14:43,361
undercuts this process just as its
beginning. The objection is, so if they

154
00:14:43,361 --> 00:14:47,908
got off to a good start, what's the
problem? If they enlisted broad public

155
00:14:47,908 --> 00:14:53,462
involvement, what's the problem? Well,
that's the objection and the response is,

156
00:14:53,462 --> 00:14:59,091
now they've decided to allow drilling in
the monument and that completely undercuts

157
00:14:59,091 --> 00:15:03,581
the process that did enlist public
involvement. Right? So, the yet is

158
00:15:03,581 --> 00:15:08,540
discounting the objection that says,
there's no problem here, they're doing

159
00:15:08,540 --> 00:15:13,365
just fine, they got broad public
involvement. They're saying the response

160
00:15:13,365 --> 00:15:18,726
to that objection is, but now they have
not got public involvement. They're doing

161
00:15:18,726 --> 00:15:24,994
it without a complete review and so on as
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The

162
00:15:24,994 --> 00:15:30,412
agency's decision to allow oil drilling in
the monument, completely, no guarding,

163
00:15:30,412 --> 00:15:35,625
right, completely undercuts. When it's
that strong a word, like completely, you

164
00:15:35,625 --> 00:15:40,647
can almost say it, I'm assuring you, it's
not just partially undercutting it's

165
00:15:40,647 --> 00:15:45,760
completely undercutting. That's a way of
making you confident that it really does,

166
00:15:45,760 --> 00:15:50,937
at least partially undercut the process
and undercuts sounds like something bad. I

167
00:15:50,937 --> 00:15:55,861
suppose you might not want to market as
evaluative because you know, you could

168
00:15:55,861 --> 00:16:01,063
undercut a bad process and that would be a
good thing. So, literally you probably

169
00:16:01,063 --> 00:16:06,375
should not mark that as evaluative, but
it's clear what Robert Redford thinks

170
00:16:06,375 --> 00:16:12,014
about undercutting this process. And now,
just. Just stands for justice, doesn't it?

171
00:16:12,014 --> 00:16:17,444
No. Remember from the very first word of
this op-ed, just is nothing here. It

172
00:16:17,444 --> 00:16:22,729
means, at the same time when it was
beginning. It's not an evaluative term,

173
00:16:22,729 --> 00:16:28,811
even though just sometimes means something
about being just or fair or good. Here, it

174
00:16:28,811 --> 00:16:34,379
doesn't mean that at all. So, we're back
to the very word that we began this op-ed

175
00:16:34,566 --> 00:16:39,686
with, and so that seems like a good place
to stop. I'll stop marking here. There are

176
00:16:39,686 --> 00:16:44,618
other things you could mark. There are
other things to discuss. These paragraphs,

177
00:16:44,618 --> 00:16:49,862
these op eds, are always extremely complex
and interesting to try to get the detail

178
00:16:49,862 --> 00:16:54,919
straight, but I'll give you a chance to
look at the next three paragraphs. They're

179
00:16:54,919 --> 00:16:59,414
all pretty short. And look at those p
aragraphs and see if you can do a close

180
00:16:59,414 --> 00:17:04,346
analysis on those, because as I've
emphasized several times, the best. Indeed

181
00:17:04,346 --> 00:17:10,143
the only way to learn close analysis is to
practice, practice, practice, practice,