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,