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,