WEBVTT

00:00:03.280 --> 00:00:08.712
Welcome back. Now you've done paragraph
three yourselves and we're going to go on

00:00:08.712 --> 00:00:14.214
to paragraph four. Might seem like were
doing an awful lot of this, but remember,

00:00:14.214 --> 00:00:19.715
the only way to learn close analysis is to
practice, practice, practice, practice,

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

00:00:24.869 --> 00:00:30.232
to spend one more lecture going though
paragraphs four and five of Robert

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

00:00:35.803 --> 00:00:42.850
Handiwork.. In paragraph four starts,
sounds like Washington double-speak to me.

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

00:00:47.728 --> 00:00:52.739
sentence at the end of the previous
paragraph that you analyzed and, that's

00:00:52.739 --> 00:00:58.152
the claim that they issued the permit
without a full review using an abbreviated

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

00:01:03.364 --> 00:01:08.376
saying that sounds like the kind of thing
Washington does when they double-speak.

00:01:08.777 --> 00:01:13.969
Double-speak is obviously a metaphor.
Right? It's a metaphor for saying one

00:01:13.969 --> 00:01:19.555
thing to one person, another thing to
another person or sometimes, saying one

00:01:19.555 --> 00:01:25.361
thing that seems to mean one thing when
what they really mean is another thing.

00:01:25.361 --> 00:01:31.167
But however you interpret the metaphor of
double-speak, it's not good. So we can

00:01:31.167 --> 00:01:37.046
indicate that double-speaking is a
negative evaluation and it's a metaphor,

00:01:37.046 --> 00:01:42.632
but clearly negative in its meeting. You
wouldn't say someone who's speaking

00:01:42.632 --> 00:01:49.307
properly is double-speak. Notice however,
that he has this phrase sounds like and it

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

00:01:55.574 --> 00:02:01.488
Washington double-speak. So he's guarding
it. He's weakening the claim. He's not

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

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

00:02:15.570 --> 00:02:23.467
against the plan that Washington was
using. I've spent considerable time on

00:02:23.467 --> 00:02:29.014
these extraordinary lands for years. I've
spent for years. Let's just circle that

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.

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

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

00:02:43.629 --> 00:02:48.972
going on. I've got the evidence. Notice,
like other assuring terms, it's not giving

00:02:48.972 --> 00:02:53.780
you the evidence. It's saying, you ought
to trust me, because I've got the

00:02:53.780 --> 00:02:59.056
evidence. I've had the experience. So it's
a perfect example of assuring, because

00:02:59.056 --> 00:03:04.600
it's saying that he has reasons without
actually giving the reasons and that's why

00:03:04.600 --> 00:03:10.344
you can't question his reasons cuz you
haven't spent considerable time on those

00:03:10.344 --> 00:03:15.764
extraordinary lands. And, of course, he
follows that up with another assuring

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

00:03:20.916 --> 00:03:26.711
assuring term, because it's describing the
mental state as being one of knowledge.

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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,

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

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

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

00:04:22.909 --> 00:04:28.150
argument for why we shouldn't have these,
these permits issued. He's going to tell

00:04:28.150 --> 00:04:33.324
you other bad things about them. So that
can be a premise marker, because what

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

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

00:04:45.126 --> 00:04:51.446
drill. It's a theleological explanation as
we saw in an earlier lecture and so that

00:04:51.446 --> 00:04:57.688
is going to be a reason marker, because
their desire to find oil is what explains

00:04:57.688 --> 00:05:06.910
their desire to want to drill. Okay?
Inevitably. What's that? Assuring. It's

00:05:06.910 --> 00:05:12.681
assuring you that it's obviously true.
There's no way around it. It is

00:05:12.681 --> 00:05:19.038
inevitable. What's inevitable? More rigs,
more roads, new pipelines, toxic waste,

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

00:05:25.548 --> 00:05:31.225
of those things are going to happen. The
previous argument, before the what's more,

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

00:05:36.974 --> 00:05:42.432
sentence, but now we've got more rigs,
more roads, new pipelines. So if an oil

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.

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

00:05:54.221 --> 00:05:59.698
should not be issued. Okay? And they would
follow, that means it's going to follow

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

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

00:06:10.467 --> 00:06:15.852
explains why they would follow, because,
right, you would need them in order to get

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

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

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.

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

00:06:39.212 --> 00:06:45.455
that stuff, the pipelines, the roads, the
waste and so on. Okay? So those are his

00:06:45.455 --> 00:06:52.994
reasons against giving a permit and then
he says, the BLM couldn't see this. Okay?

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

00:06:59.251 --> 00:07:04.886
of word a but is. But is a discounting
term. He's answering an objection. The

00:07:04.886 --> 00:07:10.666
objection is, well, you say all that would
follow, but the BLM would disagree with

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,

00:07:16.590 --> 00:07:21.947
the answer to that objection is the US
Fish and Wildlife Service and th e

00:07:21.947 --> 00:07:27.531
Environmental Protection Agency did see
this. Notice that what comes after the but

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

00:07:32.586 --> 00:07:37.456
a contrast between what the BLM couldn't
see and what the US Fish and Wildlife

00:07:37.456 --> 00:07:42.327
Service and the Environmental Protective
Agency did see, but in addition to the

00:07:42.327 --> 00:07:47.012
contrast between those two, he's also
saying it's more important that the US

00:07:47.012 --> 00:07:51.575
Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Environmental Protection Agency did see

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

00:07:59.008 --> 00:08:04.148
they see? Both of these agencies
recognized. Recognized implies, you can't

00:08:04.148 --> 00:08:09.645
recognize things that aren't true you
know, if you see somebody and you say, I

00:08:09.645 --> 00:08:15.285
recognize my sister and it wasn't your
sister, you didn't really recognize them.

00:08:15.285 --> 00:08:20.282
So to say you recognize is to assure
people that it's really true. The

00:08:20.282 --> 00:08:26.297
devastating. Now devastating can't be
good. so that's E-, effects of extensive

00:08:26.297 --> 00:08:31.718
oil drilling. Extensive, is that bad? No,
extensive oil drilling is good in the

00:08:31.718 --> 00:08:37.284
right places. It gives us the kind of
energy we need to be able to accomplish

00:08:37.284 --> 00:08:43.139
the goals that we want. Maybe you wish you
didn't need extensive oil drilling, but,

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

00:08:49.066 --> 00:08:54.920
would have a devastating effects on this
area. And then those two agencies urge the

00:08:54.920 --> 00:09:02.022
BLM to refuse to allow it. Okay. Why? In
order to protect the monument. And again,

00:09:02.022 --> 00:09:06.999
we've seen this kind of argument
repeatedly at several points during this

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

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

00:09:18.096 --> 00:09:23.544
marker. We've seen in order to protect, in
order to preserve because we want to

00:09:23.544 --> 00:09:28.656
protect, and so on. He keeps repeating
that. That's not a bad thing. Many times

00:09:28.656 --> 00:09:33.658
when someone's giving an argument, they
repeat pretty much the same words as in

00:09:33.658 --> 00:09:38.112
other areas, because they're giving
several arguments for a single conclusion.

00:09:38.112 --> 00:09:42.508
We'll actually see how those different
reasons ca n fit together in the next

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

00:09:46.962 --> 00:09:53.324
order to as a premise marker. We've
finished four paragraphs. All right. We're

00:09:53.324 --> 00:10:00.648
almost done. Yeah. Yes . Now we're on to
paragraph five. And it starts, maybe the

00:10:00.648 --> 00:10:06.914
problem comes from giving management
responsibility for this monument to the

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

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

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

00:10:23.032 --> 00:10:28.385
just suggesting that maybe so if somebody
comes along and says that not's really

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

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-,

00:10:39.318 --> 00:10:44.630
right? Another clear example, because you
can't have good things if there are

00:10:44.630 --> 00:10:50.152
problems. Sure, you can have problems on
math tests that are good, but that's not

00:10:50.152 --> 00:10:55.813
the kind of problem we're talking about
here. These kinds of problems are bad. And

00:10:55.813 --> 00:11:02.446
so that word gets marked as E-. So, the
problem comes from namely, is explained

00:11:02.446 --> 00:11:09.630
by, giving management responsibility for
this monument to the BLM. So it comes

00:11:09.630 --> 00:11:16.925
from, can get marked as a premise marker.
It's giving management responsibility to

00:11:16.925 --> 00:11:21.810
the BLM that explains why there's a
problem in the first place and that could

00:11:21.810 --> 00:11:26.744
be put in the form of an argument. That
explanation could. Okay. So y is giving

00:11:26.744 --> 00:11:31.589
management responsibility to the BLM,
create a problem, because the next

00:11:31.589 --> 00:11:36.980
sentence tells you, this is the BLM's
first national monument. This is the first

00:11:36.980 --> 00:11:42.303
time they've ever done this. Almost all
the other monuments are managed by the

00:11:42.303 --> 00:11:47.626
National Park Service. Okay? Nothing wrong
in itself with being the first, there

00:11:47.626 --> 00:11:52.539
always has to be a first, so there's
nothing evaluative there. What about

00:11:52.539 --> 00:11:59.704
almost all? Clearly guarding. Right?
Because it's not all, it's almost all, so

00:11:59.704 --> 00:12:07.747
the claim is more defensible. Almost all
the others are managed by the National

00:12:07.747 --> 00:12:15.587
Park Service. The Park Ser vices' mission
is to protect the resources under its

00:12:15.587 --> 00:12:23.732
care. Okay? Protect good resources, good,
so those both get E+. While. What about

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

00:12:30.262 --> 00:12:35.420
contrast between the parks service's
mission and the bureau's mission, but you

00:12:35.420 --> 00:12:40.487
can also read it as responding to an
objection. Well, doesn't the government

00:12:40.487 --> 00:12:45.512
protect those resources? And the answer
is, well, the Park Service does, but the

00:12:45.512 --> 00:12:50.799
bureau has a different role. The bureau
has always sought to accommodate economic

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

00:12:56.020 --> 00:13:01.307
to make sense. The park services' mission
is to protect, but the bureau has always,

00:13:01.307 --> 00:13:06.724
it looks like you can replace it with a
discounting term which means that while is

00:13:06.724 --> 00:13:12.810
functioning here as a discounting term.
Okay? The bureau has always saw it, no

00:13:12.810 --> 00:13:20.178
guardian there. It's always sought that,
right. To accommodate economic uses of

00:13:20.178 --> 00:13:29.288
those resources under its care. Even so,
starts the next sentence. What is even so

00:13:29.288 --> 00:13:35.275
doing? Well, even so is a discounting
term, because it's discounting an

00:13:35.275 --> 00:13:41.088
objection. The objection is, well they've
always sought to accommodate those uses.

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?

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

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,

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

00:14:03.339 --> 00:14:08.647
good start by enlisting broad public
involvement in developing a management

00:14:08.647 --> 00:14:14.217
plan for the area. Well, what was good
about it? They enlisted broad public

00:14:14.217 --> 00:14:20.940
involvement, therefore, it was good. Looks
like by enlisting could be a premise

00:14:20.940 --> 00:14:26.265
marker. The premise is enlist, they
enlisted broad public involvement,

00:14:26.265 --> 00:14:34.265
therefore, they got off to a good start.
Yet. What's she at? Another discounting

00:14:34.265 --> 00:14:38.751
term. The agency's decision to allow
drilling in the monument completely

00:14:38.751 --> 00:14:43.361
undercuts this process just as its
beginning. The objection is, so if they

00:14:43.361 --> 00:14:47.908
got off to a good start, what's the
problem? If they enlisted broad public

00:14:47.908 --> 00:14:53.462
involvement, what's the problem? Well,
that's the objection and the response is,

00:14:53.462 --> 00:14:59.091
now they've decided to allow drilling in
the monument and that completely undercuts

00:14:59.091 --> 00:15:03.581
the process that did enlist public
involvement. Right? So, the yet is

00:15:03.581 --> 00:15:08.540
discounting the objection that says,
there's no problem here, they're doing

00:15:08.540 --> 00:15:13.365
just fine, they got broad public
involvement. They're saying the response

00:15:13.365 --> 00:15:18.726
to that objection is, but now they have
not got public involvement. They're doing

00:15:18.726 --> 00:15:24.994
it without a complete review and so on as
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The

00:15:24.994 --> 00:15:30.412
agency's decision to allow oil drilling in
the monument, completely, no guarding,

00:15:30.412 --> 00:15:35.625
right, completely undercuts. When it's
that strong a word, like completely, you

00:15:35.625 --> 00:15:40.647
can almost say it, I'm assuring you, it's
not just partially undercutting it's

00:15:40.647 --> 00:15:45.760
completely undercutting. That's a way of
making you confident that it really does,

00:15:45.760 --> 00:15:50.937
at least partially undercut the process
and undercuts sounds like something bad. I

00:15:50.937 --> 00:15:55.861
suppose you might not want to market as
evaluative because you know, you could

00:15:55.861 --> 00:16:01.063
undercut a bad process and that would be a
good thing. So, literally you probably

00:16:01.063 --> 00:16:06.375
should not mark that as evaluative, but
it's clear what Robert Redford thinks

00:16:06.375 --> 00:16:12.014
about undercutting this process. And now,
just. Just stands for justice, doesn't it?

00:16:12.014 --> 00:16:17.444
No. Remember from the very first word of
this op-ed, just is nothing here. It

00:16:17.444 --> 00:16:22.729
means, at the same time when it was
beginning. It's not an evaluative term,

00:16:22.729 --> 00:16:28.811
even though just sometimes means something
about being just or fair or good. Here, it

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

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

00:16:39.686 --> 00:16:44.618
other things you could mark. There are
other things to discuss. These paragraphs,

00:16:44.618 --> 00:16:49.862
these op eds, are always extremely complex
and interesting to try to get the detail

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

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

00:16:59.414 --> 00:17:04.346
analysis on those, because as I've
emphasized several times, the best. Indeed

00:17:04.346 --> 00:17:10.143
the only way to learn close analysis is to
practice, practice, practice, practice,