0:00:02.320,0:00:08.115
So far, we've looked at the language of[br]argument in some detail. because we've

0:00:08.115,0:00:13.295
separated the reason markers from[br]conclusion markers. And we've talked about

0:00:13.295,0:00:18.737
assuring and guarding and discounting and[br]evaluative words. So we've picked out a

0:00:18.737,0:00:24.246
lot of different words in language that[br]play distinct roles in arguments. But what

0:00:24.246,0:00:29.688
we need to do for a real argument is to[br]bring it all together and show how these

0:00:29.688,0:00:34.659
types of words can work together in a[br]single passage. And to do that, we're

0:00:34.659,0:00:40.144
going to learn a method called close[br]analysis. And what you do with close

0:00:40.144,0:00:47.417
analysis is you simply take a passage and[br]you mark the words in that passage that

0:00:47.417,0:00:54.867
play those roles. so a reason maker you[br]can mark an R and a conclusion marker you

0:00:54.867,0:01:02.228
can mark with a C, assuring term you mark[br]with an A, a guarding term you mark with

0:01:02.228,0:01:08.364
G, a discounting term you mark with D, an[br]evaluative term you mark with E. And if

0:01:08.364,0:01:13.936
it's clear, you put a plus or a minus to[br]indicate whether it's positive evaluation

0:01:13.936,0:01:19.078
or negative evaluation. Now, these marks[br]will just be scratching the surface.

0:01:19.078,0:01:24.445
There's obviously a lot more that you can[br]do, and need to do, in order to fully

0:01:24.445,0:01:29.812
understand the passage. So, when it's a[br]discounting term, you ought to think about

0:01:29.812,0:01:35.005
which objection is being discounted. And[br]you also ought to think about the

0:01:35.005,0:01:41.038
rhetorical moves, the metaphors and irony.[br]We'll look at rhetorical questions. And

0:01:41.038,0:01:46.996
we'll basically go through the passage[br]very carefully word by word in order to

0:01:46.996,0:01:51.753
figure out what's going on in that[br]passage. So, how do you learn the

0:01:51.753,0:01:56.863
technique? The answer is very simple. You[br]practice, and then you practice again. And

0:01:56.863,0:02:01.720
then you practice, and practice, and[br]practice and practice. Practice won't make

0:02:01.720,0:02:06.767
perfect, because nothing's perfect. But[br]practice will surely help a lot, and we'll

0:02:06.767,0:02:11.552
get better and better the more we[br]practice. So in this lecture, what we're

0:02:11.552,0:02:16.663
going to do is go through one example in a[br]lot of detail and mark it up very

0:02:16.663,0:02:22.395
carefully in order to practice the method[br]of close analysis. The particular example

0:02:22.395,0:02:27.990
we chose for this lecture is by Robert[br]Redford. It's an opiad that was written

0:02:27.990,0:02:33.170
for the Washington Post. We chose it[br]because it's an interesting issue. It's

0:02:33.170,0:02:37.845
about the environment. But it's not an[br]issue that people will necessarily have

0:02:37.845,0:02:42.466
very strong emotions about. Because you[br]might not even know the particular part of

0:02:42.466,0:02:47.272
the environment that he's talking about.[br]We also choose it because it's a really

0:02:47.272,0:02:52.313
good argument. You learn how to analyze[br]arguments, and how to formulate your own

0:02:52.313,0:02:57.610
arguments by looking at good examples. Of[br]course it's fun to tear down bad examples,

0:02:57.610,0:03:02.587
but we need a nice model of a good[br]argument in order to see what's lacking in

0:03:02.587,0:03:07.628
the arguments that are bad. So we're going[br]to go through an example partly because

0:03:07.628,0:03:12.206
it's actually a pretty good argument.[br]We're also going to go through this

0:03:12.206,0:03:17.513
passage because it's really thick with[br]these argument words. So, you'll see that

0:03:17.513,0:03:23.021
we're marking a lot of different things,[br]and we'll have to go through it paragraph

0:03:23.021,0:03:28.126
by paragraph, and sentence by sentence,[br]and word by word, in great detail. This

0:03:28.126,0:03:33.970
lecture will seem like it's looking at the[br]passage with a microscope. and that's the

0:03:33.970,0:03:39.008
point, to learn to analyze with a[br]microscope, the passages where people give

0:03:39.008,0:03:44.443
arguments. Okay. So the first sentence is,[br]just over a year ago, President Clinton

0:03:44.443,0:03:49.965
created the Grand Staircase Escalante[br]National Monument to protect once and for

0:03:49.965,0:03:56.440
all some of Utah's extraordinary red rock[br]canyon country. Word number one, just.

0:03:56.440,0:04:02.344
Well, justice is a good thing, right? So[br]that must be an evaluative word. No. One

0:04:02.344,0:04:08.479
of the first lessons in close analysis, is[br]that simply because you have the word

0:04:08.479,0:04:14.383
just, doesn't mean you're talking about[br]justice. When he says, just over a year

0:04:14.383,0:04:20.748
ago, he means slightly over a year ago, or[br]somewhat over a year ago, or sometime over

0:04:20.748,0:04:26.882
a year ago. So maybe he's guarding. You[br]might want to mark this one as a guarding

0:04:26.882,0:04:32.553
term by putting a G out there. But. He's[br]not using an evaluation. To say, just over

0:04:32.553,0:04:37.480
a year ago. Well, why would he guard?[br]Because, he's not very precise. He's not

0:04:37.480,0:04:42.607
going to say, seventeen days over a year[br]ago. He's saying, just over a year ago, so

0:04:42.607,0:04:47.934
that nobody will raise a question at this[br]point. He does not want people raising

0:04:47.934,0:04:52.928
questions this early in the op-ed. So[br]let's keep going. Just over a year ago,

0:04:52.928,0:04:59.128
President Clinton created the Grand[br]Staircase-Escalante National Monument to

0:04:59.128,0:05:05.962
protect once and for all, some of the[br]extraordinary red rock country. Okay. What

0:05:05.962,0:05:13.370
about the word, to. Might seem like not[br]much cuz it's such a short word. But it's

0:05:13.370,0:05:19.306
actually doing a lot of work there if you[br]think about it. We actually I think should

0:05:19.306,0:05:24.747
market as a, an argument marker of some[br]sort. Is it a reason marker or is it a

0:05:24.747,0:05:30.258
conclusion marker? We'll come back to[br]that. But first let's get clear that it's

0:05:30.258,0:05:35.782
an argument marker of some sort. When he[br]says that he created the monument to

0:05:35.782,0:05:40.754
protect once and for all, he means in[br]order to protect, because he wanted to

0:05:40.754,0:05:45.792
protect, once and for all, some of that[br]country. It's an explanation of why he

0:05:45.792,0:05:50.564
created it. It's giving you the[br]teleological explanation, which tells you

0:05:50.564,0:05:56.525
the purpose for which he created it. So,[br]the bit that comes out protect once and

0:05:56.525,0:06:02.937
for all some of the country, is the reason[br]why he created it. It explains the

0:06:02.937,0:06:12.373
conclusion that he did create it. So this[br]is a reason marker. Now the next word,

0:06:12.373,0:06:19.841
protect. Well you might think that protect[br]is a neutral word because after all,

0:06:19.841,0:06:25.392
protectionism is criticized by some[br]people. But actually to protect something

0:06:25.392,0:06:30.943
is to keep it safe. To keep it safe from[br]harm to keep it safe from bad things

0:06:30.943,0:06:36.566
happening to it. So, to explain what[br]counts a protection and what doesn't count

0:06:36.566,0:06:42.477
as protection you have to cite what's good[br]or bad and that makes it an evaluative

0:06:42.477,0:06:48.100
word. And, in this case protecting is a[br]good thing so, it get's marked as E plus.

0:06:48.100,0:06:56.873
Okay, the next words are once and for all.[br]What is once and for all do. Nothing. Some

0:06:56.873,0:07:03.897
of these words are going to get marked as[br]nothing whatsoever. Because once and for

0:07:03.897,0:07:10.663
all doesn't guard. It says, once and for[br]all, its the absolute limit, but the next

0:07:10.663,0:07:16.619
word. Some, what does that do? That[br]guards. It's saying that what's protected

0:07:16.619,0:07:22.422
is not all of Utah's red rock country ,[br]it's only some of it and it's important

0:07:22.422,0:07:28.448
for him to guard that, because he wants to[br]say later on, as we'll see, that there's

0:07:28.448,0:07:34.772
lots of it outside the monument that's not[br]getting protected. So he wants to guard it

0:07:34.772,0:07:40.846
and say it's not all that's going to be[br]important to his argument. Now, Utah's

0:07:40.846,0:07:45.944
pretty neutral, unless you're from that[br]state, then you love it, and you might say

0:07:45.944,0:07:50.533
that's an evaluative word, but let's skip[br]that group of people right now.

0:07:50.533,0:07:55.632
Extraordinary. What about extraordinary?[br]Is that an evaluative word? Might seem to

0:07:55.632,0:08:00.475
be an evaluative word, because clearly,[br]what Redford means is extraordinarily

0:08:00.475,0:08:05.446
beautiful or extraordinarily good, red[br]rock country. But the word extraordinary,

0:08:05.446,0:08:10.811
doesn't say extraordinarily good. You can[br]have things that are extraordinarily bad.

0:08:10.811,0:08:16.003
To say it's extraordinary is to say it's[br]out of the ordinary. And the red rock

0:08:16.003,0:08:21.395
country might be extraordinarily ugly. So[br]the word extraordinary, itself, is not by

0:08:21.395,0:08:26.254
itself, an evaluative word, so it should[br]be marked as nothing. And red rock

0:08:26.254,0:08:30.980
country, also, is going to be neutral.[br]It's beautiful stuff, but simply to

0:08:30.980,0:08:35.839
describe it, as made out of red rock[br]doesn't say that it's beautiful, even

0:08:35.839,0:08:43.533
though, we all know that it is. Just look[br]at the picture. So, now we've finished a

0:08:43.533,0:08:50.826
whole sentence. Isn't that great? A whole[br]sentence! All right! And all we did was

0:08:50.826,0:08:56.155
find six things to mark in that sentence.[br]Well, four were marked and two were

0:08:56.155,0:09:01.976
nothing, but it shows you that you can go[br]through a single sentence and do a lot of

0:09:01.976,0:09:07.586
analysis to figure out what's going on,[br]and we're just getting started. Now let's

0:09:07.586,0:09:13.983
move on to the second sentence. So it's in[br]response to plans, of the Dutch company to

0:09:13.983,0:09:20.015
mine coal, President Clinton used his[br]authority, to establish the new monument.

0:09:20.015,0:09:25.627
And so on. Let's go to, in response to.[br]What does that tell you? It tells you,

0:09:25.627,0:09:31.775
that what's coming after it, explains why[br]President Clinton used his authority. It

0:09:31.775,0:09:37.391
was a response to the plans of the Dutch[br]Company. Which means that, it's an

0:09:37.391,0:09:43.159
explanation. Notice that the previous[br]explanation says, why Clinton wa nted to

0:09:43.159,0:09:48.611
do it, in general. This explanation tells[br]you why President Clinton did it at that

0:09:48.611,0:09:53.748
particular time rather than earlier or[br]later. It's because he was responding to

0:09:53.748,0:09:58.884
particular plans by a particular company.[br]So the end response to, is an argument

0:09:58.884,0:10:04.061
marker. Now, is it a reason marker or a[br]conclusion marker? Well, the conclusion,

0:10:04.061,0:10:09.398
the thing that's getting explained, is[br]that Clinton used his authority. So this

0:10:09.398,0:10:14.872
must be a reason or a premise marker. You[br]can also put P for premise marker, or R

0:10:14.872,0:10:20.004
for reason marker. Now, in response to[br]plans of the Dutch Company, Andalex to

0:10:20.004,0:10:25.478
mine coal on the Kaiparowits Plateau,[br]President Clinton used his authority under

0:10:25.478,0:10:31.050
the Antiquities Act to establish the new[br]monument. Now this is actually a pretty

0:10:31.050,0:10:37.214
tricky one. We know that, the plans of the[br]company are the premise that explains the

0:10:37.214,0:10:41.730
conclusion that Clinton used his[br]authority. But what's the word,

0:10:41.730,0:10:47.204
underdoing. Well under means is the[br]Antiquities Act that gave him that

0:10:47.204,0:10:52.228
authority. That explains why he had that[br]authority and justified him in doing what

0:10:52.228,0:10:57.006
he was doing namely establishing the[br]monument. So, the word under suggests that

0:10:57.006,0:11:01.540
there is another argument in the[br]background here that the Antiquities Act

0:11:01.540,0:11:06.379
gives the president the authority to[br]establish monuments and President Clinton

0:11:06.379,0:11:11.219
used that authority. So, the Antiquities[br]Act is again a premise or as I said you

0:11:11.219,0:11:16.517
can call it a reason marker for the[br]premise that the Antiquities Act gives the

0:11:16.517,0:11:21.843
President that authority and that[br]justifies Clinton in using his authority,

0:11:21.843,0:11:27.168
or explains why he was able to establish[br]the monument. And the word to also

0:11:27.168,0:11:32.849
indicates that what comes after it is,[br]establishing the new monument, that's what

0:11:32.849,0:11:38.246
he was trying to do. That also is an[br]argument that explains why he did it. He

0:11:38.246,0:11:43.631
had the authority. But you don't always[br]exercise your authority. Right? And so,

0:11:43.631,0:11:49.447
the point of exercising the authority, the[br]reason why he exercise his authority was

0:11:49.447,0:11:55.124
to establish the new monument. Again, it[br]might seem tricky to keep siting the word

0:11:55.124,0:12:00.585
to as an argument marker but think about[br]it, you can sub stitute in order to. He

0:12:00.585,0:12:05.927
uses authority in order to establish the[br]new monument. Or, because he wanted to

0:12:05.927,0:12:11.201
establish the new monument. And we learned[br]a few lectures ago, that if you can

0:12:11.201,0:12:16.749
substitute another argument marker for[br]this particular word, then that shows that

0:12:16.749,0:12:22.296
in this case, the word to is getting used[br]as an argument marker. In this case the

0:12:22.296,0:12:27.570
premise, because it's his wanting to[br]establish the monument that explains why

0:12:27.570,0:12:33.187
he used his authority. Okay? Here's a[br]tricky one. What about the word authority?

0:12:33.187,0:12:38.913
Well that's a really trick word and[br]sometimes it's not completely clear how

0:12:38.913,0:12:44.715
you want to mark it. Right, you might[br]think that this word is getting used as a

0:12:44.715,0:12:50.492
discounting word, namely answering a[br]potential objection. Some people might say

0:12:50.492,0:12:56.121
he didn't have the authority to do that[br]but you might think it's a positive

0:12:56.121,0:13:01.853
evaluation, having authority is a good[br]thing. And you might think that it's an

0:13:01.853,0:13:07.169
argument marker because is a reason why he[br]would have the ability to set up the

0:13:07.169,0:13:12.752
monument namely that he had the authority.[br]But he doesn't actually say openly any of

0:13:12.752,0:13:18.069
those things so, I would probably mark[br]that as a nothing but I think it's better

0:13:18.069,0:13:22.366
just to put a question mark. Because[br]sometimes, words are not going to have one

0:13:22.366,0:13:26.462
clear function or another. You know, we're[br]doing our best to put them into these

0:13:26.462,0:13:30.091
little bins of the different types of[br]words, but sometimes, they're not going to

0:13:30.402,0:13:34.549
fall neatly into one or the other, and you[br]just have to recognize that. Of course,

0:13:34.549,0:13:38.541
when it comes to the quizzes, we're not[br]going to ask you about those kinds of

0:13:38.541,0:13:44.982
words, but it's worth knowing that they're[br]there. Okay? Now. Let's move on. Setting

0:13:44.982,0:13:51.327
aside for protection, what he described as[br]some of the most remarkable land in the

0:13:51.327,0:13:56.655
world. Again, what is that telling you?[br]Setting aside for protection that it tells

0:13:56.655,0:14:01.127
you why he used his authority to establish[br]the monument. So again, we've got an

0:14:01.127,0:14:05.828
implicit reason here but, notice there's[br]just a space there's no actual word. There

0:14:05.828,0:14:10.644
could be marked as an argument marker but[br]still there's a separate argument here he

0:14:10.644,0:14:15.230
set it aside for the protection. That was[br]why he established the monument. That's

0:14:15.230,0:14:20.104
why he used his authority to establish the[br]monument. If you want to include that part

0:14:20.104,0:14:25.211
of the argument as well. Okay? For[br]protection. Protection again, that's going

0:14:25.211,0:14:30.884
to be evaluative, right? Because to[br]protect something is to keep it safe from

0:14:30.884,0:14:36.855
harm. Harm is bad. So protecting it must[br]be good. When you explain what protection

0:14:36.855,0:14:42.378
is, you're going to need to use the words[br]good and bad, as we saw in the first

0:14:42.378,0:14:48.140
sentence. What about these little[br]quotation marks. I love quotation marks

0:14:48.140,0:14:54.442
you gotta watch out for them. What he[br]described as some of the most remarkable

0:14:54.442,0:15:00.987
land in the world. Why is Robert Redford[br]quoting President Clinton and saying how

0:15:00.987,0:15:06.519
Clinton described this land? Because if[br]you're trying to convince Clinton and

0:15:06.519,0:15:11.924
trying to convince the general public to[br]try to convince Clinton, there's nothing

0:15:11.924,0:15:16.928
better than quoting Clinton himself. I[br]mean, after all, Clinton can't say, I'm

0:15:16.928,0:15:21.399
not an authority. Right? So, those[br]quotation marks and saying that he

0:15:21.399,0:15:26.336
described it, that all amounts to[br]assuring. He's assuring Clinton that, that

0:15:26.336,0:15:32.726
has to be true because after all, you said[br]it yourself. And then he says, I couldn't

0:15:32.726,0:15:39.708
agree more. Well that's a different type[br]of assuring. Remember when we saw that

0:15:39.708,0:15:45.954
some assuring terms were authoritative.[br]And other assuring terms were reflexive.

0:15:45.954,0:15:51.187
Well quoting President Clinton is an[br]authoritative assurance, it's citing an

0:15:51.187,0:15:56.764
authority. I couldn't agree more says how[br]much he agrees. Or how much certainty he

0:15:56.764,0:16:01.585
has. It certainly suggests. And so he[br]seems to be assuring you but on a

0:16:01.585,0:16:07.231
different basis, Clinton and I both agree.[br]We might disagree about other things, but

0:16:07.231,0:16:12.740
we agree about this which gives you some[br]reason to be sure that it must be true.

0:16:13.080,0:16:20.699
Okay. We're through with two sentences.[br]All right. Next. For over two decades. The

0:16:20.699,0:16:27.470
word for is sometimes an argument here. Is[br]it an argument marker here? No. How can

0:16:27.470,0:16:32.608
you tell that? It's actually nothing here.[br]But how can you tell that? Try

0:16:32.608,0:16:38.470
substituting an argument marker. You can't[br]say, because ove r two decades, many have

0:16:38.470,0:16:43.681
fought battle over battle. It's not[br]because. It's just saying, during that

0:16:43.681,0:16:49.253
period. The term for, and the words after[br]it, over two decades, are simply being

0:16:49.253,0:16:55.260
used to indicate time. Not to indicate any[br]kind of reason, in this case. So it should

0:16:55.260,0:17:02.168
be marked as nothing. Many have fought[br]battle after battle. Is that a guarding

0:17:02.168,0:17:07.205
term? Sometimes many is a guarding term.[br]Instead of saying all, you say many. But

0:17:07.205,0:17:12.198
here you say many have fought battle after[br]battle. Nobody thinks all have fought

0:17:12.198,0:17:17.254
battle after battle to keep the mining[br]conglomerates from despoiling the country.

0:17:17.254,0:17:21.747
After all, the mining conglomerates[br]themselves didn't, so, it can't be all.

0:17:21.747,0:17:26.303
So, nobody would expect the word all. So[br]in this case, the word many is not

0:17:26.303,0:17:31.608
functioning to guard the term by weakening[br]it, cuz it never started out as the strong

0:17:31.608,0:17:37.037
claim all. There was nothing to weaken.[br]They fought battle after battle. Well, you

0:17:37.037,0:17:42.631
might think that battles are a bad thing.[br]So you might mark that as e minus.

0:17:42.631,0:17:48.374
Because, after all, conflict is a bad[br]thing and in battles people get hurt and

0:17:48.374,0:17:54.266
try to hurt each other. So to explain what[br]a battle is you need to introduce an

0:17:54.266,0:17:59.507
evaluative word. And what did they fight[br]those battles for? To keep mining

0:17:59.507,0:18:04.620
conglomerates from despoiling the[br]treasures. Right? Again, to can be seen

0:18:04.620,0:18:09.946
as, in order to. That's why they fought[br]the battle. It explains the battle. Or

0:18:09.946,0:18:15.130
because they wanted to keep the mining[br]conglomerates from despoiling the

0:18:15.130,0:18:21.024
countries. So, it looks like to there is[br]indicating the premise in an argument that

0:18:21.024,0:18:27.143
explains why they fought battle after[br]battle. 'Kay? Mining conglomerates, is

0:18:27.143,0:18:33.314
mining bad? No. Are conglomerates bad? Not[br]necessarily. You can explain what a

0:18:33.314,0:18:39.649
conglomerate is without talking about good[br]or bad. From despoiling, now wait a

0:18:39.649,0:18:45.655
minute, now we've got an evaluative term.[br]It's an evaluative negative term.

0:18:45.655,0:18:51.991
Despoiling means, spoiling things or[br]making them bad. And what about treasures?

0:18:51.991,0:18:58.244
Treasures is going to be an evaluative[br]plus term because treasures are good

0:18:58.244,0:19:04.480
things. And stunning. Well, stunning is[br]not qui te so clear. Stunning means it

0:19:04.480,0:19:10.571
stuns you. You react to it in a certain[br]way. You're stunned. You look at it, and

0:19:10.571,0:19:17.533
you feel, huh, and you stop still again.[br]Just look at the pictures of this country.

0:19:17.533,0:19:28.251
It is stunning. But to call it stunning.[br]Is that evaluative? Well, you can get

0:19:28.251,0:19:34.260
stunned by how bad something is. And so,[br]it's not clear that stunning in itself is

0:19:34.260,0:19:40.196
evaluation. Clearly, Redford, in using the[br]word stunning, is talking about it being

0:19:40.196,0:19:46.280
stunningly good. But the word stunning by[br]itself doesn't seem to be evaluative. Now,

0:19:46.280,0:19:52.197
the next word of the last sentence in this[br]paragraph. Just a temporal indicator, so

0:19:52.197,0:19:57.682
that's nothing. We thought, okay? Thought[br]means it's not really true. He's just

0:19:57.682,0:20:03.166
guarding it. It's not really true that[br]some of it was safe. We thought it was.

0:20:03.166,0:20:08.482
Some of it was safe, or even at least some[br]of it was safe. Now that's going to be a

0:20:08.482,0:20:13.021
guarding term, cuz it's not saying all of[br]it was safe. It's just a little part of it

0:20:13.021,0:20:18.465
and that'll become important later in the[br]argument. Whoa! Look at this diagram! It's

0:20:18.465,0:20:24.869
got letters all over the place and they're[br]running into each other. That shows you

0:20:24.869,0:20:31.195
what close analysis does. When you start[br]looking in detail, a lot of the different

0:20:31.195,0:20:37.287
words are doing things that you can find[br]out by trying to put them into these

0:20:37.287,0:20:43.457
different categories. So, we've finished[br]the first paragraph. An entire paragraph.

0:20:43.457,0:00:00.000
Oh my God. Oh Joy!