[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:03.28,0:00:08.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Welcome back. Now you've done paragraph\Nthree yourselves and we're going to go on
Dialogue: 0,0:00:08.71,0:00:14.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to paragraph four. Might seem like were\Ndoing an awful lot of this, but remember,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:14.21,0:00:19.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the only way to learn close analysis is to\Npractice, practice, practice, practice,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:19.72,0:00:25.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,practice over and over again on as many\Npassages as you can find. So we're going
Dialogue: 0,0:00:24.87,0:00:30.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to spend one more lecture going though\Nparagraphs four and five of Robert
Dialogue: 0,0:00:30.23,0:00:35.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Redford's piece in the Washington Post\Nfrom 1997. The title was, A Piece of God's
Dialogue: 0,0:00:35.80,0:00:42.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Handiwork.. In paragraph four starts,\Nsounds like Washington double-speak to me.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:42.85,0:00:47.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, what is it that sounds like\NWashington double-speak to him. It's the
Dialogue: 0,0:00:47.73,0:00:52.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sentence at the end of the previous\Nparagraph that you analyzed and, that's
Dialogue: 0,0:00:52.74,0:00:58.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the claim that they issued the permit\Nwithout a full review using an abbreviated
Dialogue: 0,0:00:58.15,0:01:03.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,review and they didn't even look at the\Nleases on other federal lands. So, he's
Dialogue: 0,0:01:03.36,0:01:08.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,saying that sounds like the kind of thing\NWashington does when they double-speak.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:08.78,0:01:13.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Double-speak is obviously a metaphor.\NRight? It's a metaphor for saying one
Dialogue: 0,0:01:13.97,0:01:19.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thing to one person, another thing to\Nanother person or sometimes, saying one
Dialogue: 0,0:01:19.56,0:01:25.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thing that seems to mean one thing when\Nwhat they really mean is another thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:25.36,0:01:31.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But however you interpret the metaphor of\Ndouble-speak, it's not good. So we can
Dialogue: 0,0:01:31.17,0:01:37.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,indicate that double-speaking is a\Nnegative evaluation and it's a metaphor,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:37.05,0:01:42.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but clearly negative in its meeting. You\Nwouldn't say someone who's speaking
Dialogue: 0,0:01:42.63,0:01:49.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,properly is double-speak. Notice however,\Nthat he has this phrase sounds like and it
Dialogue: 0,0:01:49.31,0:01:55.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sounds like it, to him, what sounds like\Ndoing. Well, he's not saying that it is
Dialogue: 0,0:01:55.57,0:02:01.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Washington double-speak. So he's guarding\Nit. He's weakening the claim. He's not
Dialogue: 0,0:02:01.49,0:02:07.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,saying it is. He's saying it sounds like\Nand so that can be labeled as a guarding
Dialogue: 0,0:02:07.61,0:02:15.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,term. Okay. So he's guarded that claim,\Nbut now he's going to go on and argue
Dialogue: 0,0:02:15.57,0:02:23.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,against the plan that Washington was\Nusing. I've spent considerable time on
Dialogue: 0,0:02:23.47,0:02:29.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these extraordinary lands for years. I've\Nspent for years. Let's just circle that
Dialogue: 0,0:02:29.01,0:02:33.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whole thing to indicate that whole phrase,\Ncuz it's just a ll doing the same thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:33.53,0:02:38.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What's it doing? It's assuring you. You\Nsay, because I have spent so much time on
Dialogue: 0,0:02:38.69,0:02:43.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these lands, I spent so many years on\Nthem. You can trust me to know what's
Dialogue: 0,0:02:43.63,0:02:48.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,going on. I've got the evidence. Notice,\Nlike other assuring terms, it's not giving
Dialogue: 0,0:02:48.97,0:02:53.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you the evidence. It's saying, you ought\Nto trust me, because I've got the
Dialogue: 0,0:02:53.78,0:02:59.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,evidence. I've had the experience. So it's\Na perfect example of assuring, because
Dialogue: 0,0:02:59.06,0:03:04.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's saying that he has reasons without\Nactually giving the reasons and that's why
Dialogue: 0,0:03:04.60,0:03:10.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you can't question his reasons cuz you\Nhaven't spent considerable time on those
Dialogue: 0,0:03:10.34,0:03:15.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,extraordinary lands. And, of course, he\Nfollows that up with another assuring
Dialogue: 0,0:03:15.76,0:03:20.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,term. He says, and I know. When you say, I\Nknow, that's an assuring term, a mental
Dialogue: 0,0:03:20.92,0:03:26.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,assuring term, because it's describing the\Nmental state as being one of knowledge.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:26.71,0:03:32.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Knowledge implies truth, and to say I know\Nit is to imply that it's true to ensure
Dialogue: 0,0:03:32.58,0:03:38.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you that it's true. Okay? But what does he\Nknow? He knows that an oil rig in their
Dialogue: 0,0:03:38.09,0:03:43.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,midst, would have a major impact. And what\Nabout that? A major impact. Okay? Now he's
Dialogue: 0,0:03:43.78,0:03:49.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,clearly saying it would be a bad impact,\Nbut does he come out and say it's bad? No,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:49.00,0:03:54.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he just says it's major. Okay? So it's not\Nan evaluative term that would be labeled
Dialogue: 0,0:03:54.76,0:04:00.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as nothing if nothing is an option. So,\Nhe's clearly suggesting that it's bad, but
Dialogue: 0,0:04:00.56,0:04:06.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he's not saying it, so it shouldn't be\Nmarked as an evaluative term, okay? Next,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:06.14,0:04:11.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what's more. Well, what's more is kind of\Na conjunction, but what came before this
Dialogue: 0,0:04:11.94,0:04:17.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was an argument that it would have a major\Nimpact based on his assurance. And so when
Dialogue: 0,0:04:17.74,0:04:22.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he says, once more, he's suggesting that\Nwhat's going to come next is yet another
Dialogue: 0,0:04:22.91,0:04:28.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument for why we shouldn't have these,\Nthese permits issued. He's going to tell
Dialogue: 0,0:04:28.15,0:04:33.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you other bad things about them. So that\Ncan be a premise marker, because what
Dialogue: 0,0:04:33.32,0:04:39.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,comes after it is the premise. They want\Nto drill to find oil. Well, we can say, to
Dialogue: 0,0:04:39.19,0:04:45.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,find oil, it's in order to find oil, that\Nis going to explain why they want to
Dialogue: 0,0:04:45.13,0:04:51.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,drill. It's a theleological explanation as\Nwe saw in an earlier lecture and so that
Dialogue: 0,0:04:51.45,0:04:57.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is going to be a reason marker, because\Ntheir desire to find oil is what explains
Dialogue: 0,0:04:57.69,0:05:06.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,their desire to want to drill. Okay?\NInevitably. What's that? Assuring. It's
Dialogue: 0,0:05:06.91,0:05:12.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,assuring you that it's obviously true.\NThere's no way around it. It is
Dialogue: 0,0:05:12.68,0:05:19.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,inevitable. What's inevitable? More rigs,\Nmore roads, new pipelines, toxic waste,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:19.04,0:05:25.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and bright lights would follow to get the\Noil out. Okay? He's assuring you that all
Dialogue: 0,0:05:25.55,0:05:31.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of those things are going to happen. The\Nprevious argument, before the what's more,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:31.22,0:05:36.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was simply an oil rig. Notice it's just an\Noil rig, one oil rig up there in that
Dialogue: 0,0:05:36.97,0:05:42.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sentence, but now we've got more rigs,\Nmore roads, new pipelines. So if an oil
Dialogue: 0,0:05:42.43,0:05:48.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rig has a major impact, all of this other\Nstuff's going to a lot more of an impact.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:48.18,0:05:54.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's the point of the what's more. He's\Nadding additional reasons why the permits
Dialogue: 0,0:05:54.22,0:05:59.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,should not be issued. Okay? And they would\Nfollow, that means it's going to follow
Dialogue: 0,0:05:59.70,0:06:05.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what? In time. It's just temporal. It's\Nnot saying anything more than it's going
Dialogue: 0,0:06:04.87,0:06:10.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to follow at a later time, but they're\Ngonna follow to get the oil out. That
Dialogue: 0,0:06:10.47,0:06:15.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,explains why they would follow, because,\Nright, you would need them in order to get
Dialogue: 0,0:06:15.85,0:06:21.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the oil out. So that's going to be an\Nargument marker itself. Is it a reason
Dialogue: 0,0:06:21.24,0:06:27.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,marker or is it a conclusion marker? Well,\Nthe conclusion is that all that's going to
Dialogue: 0,0:06:27.37,0:06:33.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,follow. Right? And the premise is that\Nit's needed in order to get the oil out.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:33.08,0:06:39.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So this is going to be a premise marker.\NAnd the conclusion is that you get all
Dialogue: 0,0:06:39.21,0:06:45.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that stuff, the pipelines, the roads, the\Nwaste and so on. Okay? So those are his
Dialogue: 0,0:06:45.46,0:06:52.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reasons against giving a permit and then\Nhe says, the BLM couldn't see this. Okay?
Dialogue: 0,0:06:52.99,0:06:59.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,He just states it as a fact. But, what's\Nthe but doing there? Remember, what kind
Dialogue: 0,0:06:59.25,0:07:04.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of word a but is. But is a discounting\Nterm. He's answering an objection. The
Dialogue: 0,0:07:04.89,0:07:10.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,objection is, well, you say all that would\Nfollow, but the BLM would disagree with
Dialogue: 0,0:07:10.67,0:07:16.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you and they looked at it very carefully\Nand they're an authority or an expert. So,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:16.59,0:07:21.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the answer to that objection is the US\NFish and Wildlife Service and th e
Dialogue: 0,0:07:21.95,0:07:27.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Environmental Protection Agency did see\Nthis. Notice that what comes after the but
Dialogue: 0,0:07:27.53,0:07:32.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is more important than what came before\Nit. What he's doing is saying that there's
Dialogue: 0,0:07:32.59,0:07:37.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a contrast between what the BLM couldn't\Nsee and what the US Fish and Wildlife
Dialogue: 0,0:07:37.46,0:07:42.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Service and the Environmental Protective\NAgency did see, but in addition to the
Dialogue: 0,0:07:42.33,0:07:47.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,contrast between those two, he's also\Nsaying it's more important that the US
Dialogue: 0,0:07:47.01,0:07:51.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Fish and Wildlife Service and the\NEnvironmental Protection Agency did see
Dialogue: 0,0:07:51.58,0:07:59.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it. Okay? So what comes after the but is\Ntaken to be more important. And what did
Dialogue: 0,0:07:59.01,0:08:04.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they see? Both of these agencies\Nrecognized. Recognized implies, you can't
Dialogue: 0,0:08:04.15,0:08:09.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,recognize things that aren't true you\Nknow, if you see somebody and you say, I
Dialogue: 0,0:08:09.64,0:08:15.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,recognize my sister and it wasn't your\Nsister, you didn't really recognize them.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:15.28,0:08:20.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So to say you recognize is to assure\Npeople that it's really true. The
Dialogue: 0,0:08:20.28,0:08:26.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,devastating. Now devastating can't be\Ngood. so that's E-, effects of extensive
Dialogue: 0,0:08:26.30,0:08:31.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,oil drilling. Extensive, is that bad? No,\Nextensive oil drilling is good in the
Dialogue: 0,0:08:31.72,0:08:37.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right places. It gives us the kind of\Nenergy we need to be able to accomplish
Dialogue: 0,0:08:37.28,0:08:43.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the goals that we want. Maybe you wish you\Ndidn't need extensive oil drilling, but,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:43.14,0:08:49.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if you need it, then it's good when it's\Ndone in the right place. And that drilling
Dialogue: 0,0:08:49.07,0:08:54.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,would have a devastating effects on this\Narea. And then those two agencies urge the
Dialogue: 0,0:08:54.92,0:09:02.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,BLM to refuse to allow it. Okay. Why? In\Norder to protect the monument. And again,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:02.02,0:09:06.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we've seen this kind of argument\Nrepeatedly at several points during this
Dialogue: 0,0:09:06.100,0:09:12.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,particular ad. That's saying that the goal\Nis to protect the monument and that's what
Dialogue: 0,0:09:12.92,0:09:18.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,justifies urging the BLM to refuse to\Nallow it. So this is going to be a premise
Dialogue: 0,0:09:18.10,0:09:23.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,marker. We've seen in order to protect, in\Norder to preserve because we want to
Dialogue: 0,0:09:23.54,0:09:28.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,protect, and so on. He keeps repeating\Nthat. That's not a bad thing. Many times
Dialogue: 0,0:09:28.66,0:09:33.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when someone's giving an argument, they\Nrepeat pretty much the same words as in
Dialogue: 0,0:09:33.66,0:09:38.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,other areas, because they're giving\Nseveral arguments for a single conclusion.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:38.11,0:09:42.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We'll actually see how those different\Nreasons ca n fit together in the next
Dialogue: 0,0:09:42.51,0:09:46.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,section of the course, but for now, all\Nwe're doing is marking the words in an
Dialogue: 0,0:09:46.96,0:09:53.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,order to as a premise marker. We've\Nfinished four paragraphs. All right. We're
Dialogue: 0,0:09:53.32,0:10:00.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,almost done. Yeah. Yes . Now we're on to\Nparagraph five. And it starts, maybe the
Dialogue: 0,0:10:00.65,0:10:06.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,problem comes from giving management\Nresponsibility for this monument to the
Dialogue: 0,0:10:06.91,0:10:12.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,BLM. What about the word maybe? The word\Nmaybe is about as clear a case as you can
Dialogue: 0,0:10:12.32,0:10:17.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,get of a guarding term. It's saying it\Nmight be the case, it might not be the
Dialogue: 0,0:10:17.41,0:10:23.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,case. I'm not going to definitely claim\Nthat's where the problem comes from. I'm
Dialogue: 0,0:10:23.03,0:10:28.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,just suggesting that maybe so if somebody\Ncomes along and says that not's really
Dialogue: 0,0:10:28.38,0:10:33.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,true, I'm going to say, well maybe it's\Ntrue, that's all I was claiming, and so
Dialogue: 0,0:10:33.27,0:10:39.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm now able to defend my premise. Okay?\NProblem. What about problem? Got to be E-,
Dialogue: 0,0:10:39.32,0:10:44.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right? Another clear example, because you\Ncan't have good things if there are
Dialogue: 0,0:10:44.63,0:10:50.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,problems. Sure, you can have problems on\Nmath tests that are good, but that's not
Dialogue: 0,0:10:50.15,0:10:55.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the kind of problem we're talking about\Nhere. These kinds of problems are bad. And
Dialogue: 0,0:10:55.81,0:11:02.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so that word gets marked as E-. So, the\Nproblem comes from namely, is explained
Dialogue: 0,0:11:02.45,0:11:09.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by, giving management responsibility for\Nthis monument to the BLM. So it comes
Dialogue: 0,0:11:09.63,0:11:16.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from, can get marked as a premise marker.\NIt's giving management responsibility to
Dialogue: 0,0:11:16.92,0:11:21.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the BLM that explains why there's a\Nproblem in the first place and that could
Dialogue: 0,0:11:21.81,0:11:26.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be put in the form of an argument. That\Nexplanation could. Okay. So y is giving
Dialogue: 0,0:11:26.74,0:11:31.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,management responsibility to the BLM,\Ncreate a problem, because the next
Dialogue: 0,0:11:31.59,0:11:36.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sentence tells you, this is the BLM's\Nfirst national monument. This is the first
Dialogue: 0,0:11:36.98,0:11:42.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,time they've ever done this. Almost all\Nthe other monuments are managed by the
Dialogue: 0,0:11:42.30,0:11:47.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,National Park Service. Okay? Nothing wrong\Nin itself with being the first, there
Dialogue: 0,0:11:47.63,0:11:52.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,always has to be a first, so there's\Nnothing evaluative there. What about
Dialogue: 0,0:11:52.54,0:11:59.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,almost all? Clearly guarding. Right?\NBecause it's not all, it's almost all, so
Dialogue: 0,0:11:59.70,0:12:07.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the claim is more defensible. Almost all\Nthe others are managed by the National
Dialogue: 0,0:12:07.75,0:12:15.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Park Service. The Park Ser vices' mission\Nis to protect the resources under its
Dialogue: 0,0:12:15.59,0:12:23.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,care. Okay? Protect good resources, good,\Nso those both get E+. While. What about
Dialogue: 0,0:12:23.73,0:12:30.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the word while? It's not completely clear.\NYou could read this as simply setting up a
Dialogue: 0,0:12:30.26,0:12:35.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,contrast between the parks service's\Nmission and the bureau's mission, but you
Dialogue: 0,0:12:35.42,0:12:40.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can also read it as responding to an\Nobjection. Well, doesn't the government
Dialogue: 0,0:12:40.49,0:12:45.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,protect those resources? And the answer\Nis, well, the Park Service does, but the
Dialogue: 0,0:12:45.51,0:12:50.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,bureau has a different role. The bureau\Nhas always sought to accommodate economic
Dialogue: 0,0:12:50.80,0:12:56.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,uses. Okay? So if you read that while as\Nbut and you replace it with but, it seems
Dialogue: 0,0:12:56.02,0:13:01.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to make sense. The park services' mission\Nis to protect, but the bureau has always,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:01.31,0:13:06.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it looks like you can replace it with a\Ndiscounting term which means that while is
Dialogue: 0,0:13:06.72,0:13:12.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,functioning here as a discounting term.\NOkay? The bureau has always saw it, no
Dialogue: 0,0:13:12.81,0:13:20.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,guardian there. It's always sought that,\Nright. To accommodate economic uses of
Dialogue: 0,0:13:20.18,0:13:29.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,those resources under its care. Even so,\Nstarts the next sentence. What is even so
Dialogue: 0,0:13:29.29,0:13:35.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,doing? Well, even so is a discounting\Nterm, because it's discounting an
Dialogue: 0,0:13:35.28,0:13:41.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,objection. The objection is, well they've\Nalways sought to accommodate those uses.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:41.09,0:13:46.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, then how do you explain the fact\Nthat they got off to such a good start?
Dialogue: 0,0:13:46.68,0:13:52.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They seem to be, okay? They seem to be,\Nthat's a guarding term. It's not saying
Dialogue: 0,0:13:52.21,0:13:57.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they were. It's saying they seem to. We're\Ngetting off to a good start, good. Boy,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:57.75,0:14:03.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there's an evaluative plus. You can't beat\Nthat for a clear evaluative plus. To a
Dialogue: 0,0:14:03.34,0:14:08.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,good start by enlisting broad public\Ninvolvement in developing a management
Dialogue: 0,0:14:08.65,0:14:14.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,plan for the area. Well, what was good\Nabout it? They enlisted broad public
Dialogue: 0,0:14:14.22,0:14:20.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,involvement, therefore, it was good. Looks\Nlike by enlisting could be a premise
Dialogue: 0,0:14:20.94,0:14:26.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,marker. The premise is enlist, they\Nenlisted broad public involvement,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:26.26,0:14:34.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,therefore, they got off to a good start.\NYet. What's she at? Another discounting
Dialogue: 0,0:14:34.26,0:14:38.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,term. The agency's decision to allow\Ndrilling in the monument completely
Dialogue: 0,0:14:38.75,0:14:43.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,undercuts this process just as its\Nbeginning. The objection is, so if they
Dialogue: 0,0:14:43.36,0:14:47.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,got off to a good start, what's the\Nproblem? If they enlisted broad public
Dialogue: 0,0:14:47.91,0:14:53.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,involvement, what's the problem? Well,\Nthat's the objection and the response is,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:53.46,0:14:59.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,now they've decided to allow drilling in\Nthe monument and that completely undercuts
Dialogue: 0,0:14:59.09,0:15:03.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the process that did enlist public\Ninvolvement. Right? So, the yet is
Dialogue: 0,0:15:03.58,0:15:08.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,discounting the objection that says,\Nthere's no problem here, they're doing
Dialogue: 0,0:15:08.54,0:15:13.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,just fine, they got broad public\Ninvolvement. They're saying the response
Dialogue: 0,0:15:13.36,0:15:18.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to that objection is, but now they have\Nnot got public involvement. They're doing
Dialogue: 0,0:15:18.73,0:15:24.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it without a complete review and so on as\Nmentioned in the preceding paragraph. The
Dialogue: 0,0:15:24.99,0:15:30.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,agency's decision to allow oil drilling in\Nthe monument, completely, no guarding,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:30.41,0:15:35.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right, completely undercuts. When it's\Nthat strong a word, like completely, you
Dialogue: 0,0:15:35.62,0:15:40.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can almost say it, I'm assuring you, it's\Nnot just partially undercutting it's
Dialogue: 0,0:15:40.65,0:15:45.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,completely undercutting. That's a way of\Nmaking you confident that it really does,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:45.76,0:15:50.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at least partially undercut the process\Nand undercuts sounds like something bad. I
Dialogue: 0,0:15:50.94,0:15:55.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,suppose you might not want to market as\Nevaluative because you know, you could
Dialogue: 0,0:15:55.86,0:16:01.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,undercut a bad process and that would be a\Ngood thing. So, literally you probably
Dialogue: 0,0:16:01.06,0:16:06.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,should not mark that as evaluative, but\Nit's clear what Robert Redford thinks
Dialogue: 0,0:16:06.38,0:16:12.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about undercutting this process. And now,\Njust. Just stands for justice, doesn't it?
Dialogue: 0,0:16:12.01,0:16:17.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,No. Remember from the very first word of\Nthis op-ed, just is nothing here. It
Dialogue: 0,0:16:17.44,0:16:22.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,means, at the same time when it was\Nbeginning. It's not an evaluative term,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:22.73,0:16:28.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,even though just sometimes means something\Nabout being just or fair or good. Here, it
Dialogue: 0,0:16:28.81,0:16:34.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,doesn't mean that at all. So, we're back\Nto the very word that we began this op-ed
Dialogue: 0,0:16:34.57,0:16:39.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with, and so that seems like a good place\Nto stop. I'll stop marking here. There are
Dialogue: 0,0:16:39.69,0:16:44.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,other things you could mark. There are\Nother things to discuss. These paragraphs,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:44.62,0:16:49.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these op eds, are always extremely complex\Nand interesting to try to get the detail
Dialogue: 0,0:16:49.86,0:16:54.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,straight, but I'll give you a chance to\Nlook at the next three paragraphs. They're
Dialogue: 0,0:16:54.92,0:16:59.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,all pretty short. And look at those p\Naragraphs and see if you can do a close
Dialogue: 0,0:16:59.41,0:17:04.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,analysis on those, because as I've\Nemphasized several times, the best. Indeed
Dialogue: 0,0:17:04.35,0:17:10.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the only way to learn close analysis is to\Npractice, practice, practice, practice,