1 00:00:02,320 --> 00:00:08,115 So far, we've looked at the language of argument in some detail. because we've 2 00:00:08,115 --> 00:00:13,295 separated the reason markers from conclusion markers. And we've talked about 3 00:00:13,295 --> 00:00:18,737 assuring and guarding and discounting and evaluative words. So we've picked out a 4 00:00:18,737 --> 00:00:24,246 lot of different words in language that play distinct roles in arguments. But what 5 00:00:24,246 --> 00:00:29,688 we need to do for a real argument is to bring it all together and show how these 6 00:00:29,688 --> 00:00:34,659 types of words can work together in a single passage. And to do that, we're 7 00:00:34,659 --> 00:00:40,144 going to learn a method called close analysis. And what you do with close 8 00:00:40,144 --> 00:00:47,417 analysis is you simply take a passage and you mark the words in that passage that 9 00:00:47,417 --> 00:00:54,867 play those roles. so a reason maker you can mark an R and a conclusion marker you 10 00:00:54,867 --> 00:01:02,228 can mark with a C, assuring term you mark with an A, a guarding term you mark with 11 00:01:02,228 --> 00:01:08,364 G, a discounting term you mark with D, an evaluative term you mark with E. And if 12 00:01:08,364 --> 00:01:13,936 it's clear, you put a plus or a minus to indicate whether it's positive evaluation 13 00:01:13,936 --> 00:01:19,078 or negative evaluation. Now, these marks will just be scratching the surface. 14 00:01:19,078 --> 00:01:24,445 There's obviously a lot more that you can do, and need to do, in order to fully 15 00:01:24,445 --> 00:01:29,812 understand the passage. So, when it's a discounting term, you ought to think about 16 00:01:29,812 --> 00:01:35,005 which objection is being discounted. And you also ought to think about the 17 00:01:35,005 --> 00:01:41,038 rhetorical moves, the metaphors and irony. We'll look at rhetorical questions. And 18 00:01:41,038 --> 00:01:46,996 we'll basically go through the passage very carefully word by word in order to 19 00:01:46,996 --> 00:01:51,753 figure out what's going on in that passage. So, how do you learn the 20 00:01:51,753 --> 00:01:56,863 technique? The answer is very simple. You practice, and then you practice again. And 21 00:01:56,863 --> 00:02:01,720 then you practice, and practice, and practice and practice. Practice won't make 22 00:02:01,720 --> 00:02:06,767 perfect, because nothing's perfect. But practice will surely help a lot, and we'll 23 00:02:06,767 --> 00:02:11,552 get better and better the more we practice. So in this lecture, what we're 24 00:02:11,552 --> 00:02:16,663 going to do is go through one example in a lot of detail and mark it up very 25 00:02:16,663 --> 00:02:22,395 carefully in order to practice the method of close analysis. The particular example 26 00:02:22,395 --> 00:02:27,990 we chose for this lecture is by Robert Redford. It's an opiad that was written 27 00:02:27,990 --> 00:02:33,170 for the Washington Post. We chose it because it's an interesting issue. It's 28 00:02:33,170 --> 00:02:37,845 about the environment. But it's not an issue that people will necessarily have 29 00:02:37,845 --> 00:02:42,466 very strong emotions about. Because you might not even know the particular part of 30 00:02:42,466 --> 00:02:47,272 the environment that he's talking about. We also choose it because it's a really 31 00:02:47,272 --> 00:02:52,313 good argument. You learn how to analyze arguments, and how to formulate your own 32 00:02:52,313 --> 00:02:57,610 arguments by looking at good examples. Of course it's fun to tear down bad examples, 33 00:02:57,610 --> 00:03:02,587 but we need a nice model of a good argument in order to see what's lacking in 34 00:03:02,587 --> 00:03:07,628 the arguments that are bad. So we're going to go through an example partly because 35 00:03:07,628 --> 00:03:12,206 it's actually a pretty good argument. We're also going to go through this 36 00:03:12,206 --> 00:03:17,513 passage because it's really thick with these argument words. So, you'll see that 37 00:03:17,513 --> 00:03:23,021 we're marking a lot of different things, and we'll have to go through it paragraph 38 00:03:23,021 --> 00:03:28,126 by paragraph, and sentence by sentence, and word by word, in great detail. This 39 00:03:28,126 --> 00:03:33,970 lecture will seem like it's looking at the passage with a microscope. and that's the 40 00:03:33,970 --> 00:03:39,008 point, to learn to analyze with a microscope, the passages where people give 41 00:03:39,008 --> 00:03:44,443 arguments. Okay. So the first sentence is, just over a year ago, President Clinton 42 00:03:44,443 --> 00:03:49,965 created the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument to protect once and for 43 00:03:49,965 --> 00:03:56,440 all some of Utah's extraordinary red rock canyon country. Word number one, just. 44 00:03:56,440 --> 00:04:02,344 Well, justice is a good thing, right? So that must be an evaluative word. No. One 45 00:04:02,344 --> 00:04:08,479 of the first lessons in close analysis, is that simply because you have the word 46 00:04:08,479 --> 00:04:14,383 just, doesn't mean you're talking about justice. When he says, just over a year 47 00:04:14,383 --> 00:04:20,748 ago, he means slightly over a year ago, or somewhat over a year ago, or sometime over 48 00:04:20,748 --> 00:04:26,882 a year ago. So maybe he's guarding. You might want to mark this one as a guarding 49 00:04:26,882 --> 00:04:32,553 term by putting a G out there. But. He's not using an evaluation. To say, just over 50 00:04:32,553 --> 00:04:37,480 a year ago. Well, why would he guard? Because, he's not very precise. He's not 51 00:04:37,480 --> 00:04:42,607 going to say, seventeen days over a year ago. He's saying, just over a year ago, so 52 00:04:42,607 --> 00:04:47,934 that nobody will raise a question at this point. He does not want people raising 53 00:04:47,934 --> 00:04:52,928 questions this early in the op-ed. So let's keep going. Just over a year ago, 54 00:04:52,928 --> 00:04:59,128 President Clinton created the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to 55 00:04:59,128 --> 00:05:05,962 protect once and for all, some of the extraordinary red rock country. Okay. What 56 00:05:05,962 --> 00:05:13,370 about the word, to. Might seem like not much cuz it's such a short word. But it's 57 00:05:13,370 --> 00:05:19,306 actually doing a lot of work there if you think about it. We actually I think should 58 00:05:19,306 --> 00:05:24,747 market as a, an argument marker of some sort. Is it a reason marker or is it a 59 00:05:24,747 --> 00:05:30,258 conclusion marker? We'll come back to that. But first let's get clear that it's 60 00:05:30,258 --> 00:05:35,782 an argument marker of some sort. When he says that he created the monument to 61 00:05:35,782 --> 00:05:40,754 protect once and for all, he means in order to protect, because he wanted to 62 00:05:40,754 --> 00:05:45,792 protect, once and for all, some of that country. It's an explanation of why he 63 00:05:45,792 --> 00:05:50,564 created it. It's giving you the teleological explanation, which tells you 64 00:05:50,564 --> 00:05:56,525 the purpose for which he created it. So, the bit that comes out protect once and 65 00:05:56,525 --> 00:06:02,937 for all some of the country, is the reason why he created it. It explains the 66 00:06:02,937 --> 00:06:12,373 conclusion that he did create it. So this is a reason marker. Now the next word, 67 00:06:12,373 --> 00:06:19,841 protect. Well you might think that protect is a neutral word because after all, 68 00:06:19,841 --> 00:06:25,392 protectionism is criticized by some people. But actually to protect something 69 00:06:25,392 --> 00:06:30,943 is to keep it safe. To keep it safe from harm to keep it safe from bad things 70 00:06:30,943 --> 00:06:36,566 happening to it. So, to explain what counts a protection and what doesn't count 71 00:06:36,566 --> 00:06:42,477 as protection you have to cite what's good or bad and that makes it an evaluative 72 00:06:42,477 --> 00:06:48,100 word. And, in this case protecting is a good thing so, it get's marked as E plus. 73 00:06:48,100 --> 00:06:56,873 Okay, the next words are once and for all. What is once and for all do. Nothing. Some 74 00:06:56,873 --> 00:07:03,897 of these words are going to get marked as nothing whatsoever. Because once and for 75 00:07:03,897 --> 00:07:10,663 all doesn't guard. It says, once and for all, its the absolute limit, but the next 76 00:07:10,663 --> 00:07:16,619 word. Some, what does that do? That guards. It's saying that what's protected 77 00:07:16,619 --> 00:07:22,422 is not all of Utah's red rock country , it's only some of it and it's important 78 00:07:22,422 --> 00:07:28,448 for him to guard that, because he wants to say later on, as we'll see, that there's 79 00:07:28,448 --> 00:07:34,772 lots of it outside the monument that's not getting protected. So he wants to guard it 80 00:07:34,772 --> 00:07:40,846 and say it's not all that's going to be important to his argument. Now, Utah's 81 00:07:40,846 --> 00:07:45,944 pretty neutral, unless you're from that state, then you love it, and you might say 82 00:07:45,944 --> 00:07:50,533 that's an evaluative word, but let's skip that group of people right now. 83 00:07:50,533 --> 00:07:55,632 Extraordinary. What about extraordinary? Is that an evaluative word? Might seem to 84 00:07:55,632 --> 00:08:00,475 be an evaluative word, because clearly, what Redford means is extraordinarily 85 00:08:00,475 --> 00:08:05,446 beautiful or extraordinarily good, red rock country. But the word extraordinary, 86 00:08:05,446 --> 00:08:10,811 doesn't say extraordinarily good. You can have things that are extraordinarily bad. 87 00:08:10,811 --> 00:08:16,003 To say it's extraordinary is to say it's out of the ordinary. And the red rock 88 00:08:16,003 --> 00:08:21,395 country might be extraordinarily ugly. So the word extraordinary, itself, is not by 89 00:08:21,395 --> 00:08:26,254 itself, an evaluative word, so it should be marked as nothing. And red rock 90 00:08:26,254 --> 00:08:30,980 country, also, is going to be neutral. It's beautiful stuff, but simply to 91 00:08:30,980 --> 00:08:35,839 describe it, as made out of red rock doesn't say that it's beautiful, even 92 00:08:35,839 --> 00:08:43,533 though, we all know that it is. Just look at the picture. So, now we've finished a 93 00:08:43,533 --> 00:08:50,826 whole sentence. Isn't that great? A whole sentence! All right! And all we did was 94 00:08:50,826 --> 00:08:56,155 find six things to mark in that sentence. Well, four were marked and two were 95 00:08:56,155 --> 00:09:01,976 nothing, but it shows you that you can go through a single sentence and do a lot of 96 00:09:01,976 --> 00:09:07,586 analysis to figure out what's going on, and we're just getting started. Now let's 97 00:09:07,586 --> 00:09:13,983 move on to the second sentence. So it's in response to plans, of the Dutch company to 98 00:09:13,983 --> 00:09:20,015 mine coal, President Clinton used his authority, to establish the new monument. 99 00:09:20,015 --> 00:09:25,627 And so on. Let's go to, in response to. What does that tell you? It tells you, 100 00:09:25,627 --> 00:09:31,775 that what's coming after it, explains why President Clinton used his authority. It 101 00:09:31,775 --> 00:09:37,391 was a response to the plans of the Dutch Company. Which means that, it's an 102 00:09:37,391 --> 00:09:43,159 explanation. Notice that the previous explanation says, why Clinton wa nted to 103 00:09:43,159 --> 00:09:48,611 do it, in general. This explanation tells you why President Clinton did it at that 104 00:09:48,611 --> 00:09:53,748 particular time rather than earlier or later. It's because he was responding to 105 00:09:53,748 --> 00:09:58,884 particular plans by a particular company. So the end response to, is an argument 106 00:09:58,884 --> 00:10:04,061 marker. Now, is it a reason marker or a conclusion marker? Well, the conclusion, 107 00:10:04,061 --> 00:10:09,398 the thing that's getting explained, is that Clinton used his authority. So this 108 00:10:09,398 --> 00:10:14,872 must be a reason or a premise marker. You can also put P for premise marker, or R 109 00:10:14,872 --> 00:10:20,004 for reason marker. Now, in response to plans of the Dutch Company, Andalex to 110 00:10:20,004 --> 00:10:25,478 mine coal on the Kaiparowits Plateau, President Clinton used his authority under 111 00:10:25,478 --> 00:10:31,050 the Antiquities Act to establish the new monument. Now this is actually a pretty 112 00:10:31,050 --> 00:10:37,214 tricky one. We know that, the plans of the company are the premise that explains the 113 00:10:37,214 --> 00:10:41,730 conclusion that Clinton used his authority. But what's the word, 114 00:10:41,730 --> 00:10:47,204 underdoing. Well under means is the Antiquities Act that gave him that 115 00:10:47,204 --> 00:10:52,228 authority. That explains why he had that authority and justified him in doing what 116 00:10:52,228 --> 00:10:57,006 he was doing namely establishing the monument. So, the word under suggests that 117 00:10:57,006 --> 00:11:01,540 there is another argument in the background here that the Antiquities Act 118 00:11:01,540 --> 00:11:06,379 gives the president the authority to establish monuments and President Clinton 119 00:11:06,379 --> 00:11:11,219 used that authority. So, the Antiquities Act is again a premise or as I said you 120 00:11:11,219 --> 00:11:16,517 can call it a reason marker for the premise that the Antiquities Act gives the 121 00:11:16,517 --> 00:11:21,843 President that authority and that justifies Clinton in using his authority, 122 00:11:21,843 --> 00:11:27,168 or explains why he was able to establish the monument. And the word to also 123 00:11:27,168 --> 00:11:32,849 indicates that what comes after it is, establishing the new monument, that's what 124 00:11:32,849 --> 00:11:38,246 he was trying to do. That also is an argument that explains why he did it. He 125 00:11:38,246 --> 00:11:43,631 had the authority. But you don't always exercise your authority. Right? And so, 126 00:11:43,631 --> 00:11:49,447 the point of exercising the authority, the reason why he exercise his authority was 127 00:11:49,447 --> 00:11:55,124 to establish the new monument. Again, it might seem tricky to keep siting the word 128 00:11:55,124 --> 00:12:00,585 to as an argument marker but think about it, you can sub stitute in order to. He 129 00:12:00,585 --> 00:12:05,927 uses authority in order to establish the new monument. Or, because he wanted to 130 00:12:05,927 --> 00:12:11,201 establish the new monument. And we learned a few lectures ago, that if you can 131 00:12:11,201 --> 00:12:16,749 substitute another argument marker for this particular word, then that shows that 132 00:12:16,749 --> 00:12:22,296 in this case, the word to is getting used as an argument marker. In this case the 133 00:12:22,296 --> 00:12:27,570 premise, because it's his wanting to establish the monument that explains why 134 00:12:27,570 --> 00:12:33,187 he used his authority. Okay? Here's a tricky one. What about the word authority? 135 00:12:33,187 --> 00:12:38,913 Well that's a really trick word and sometimes it's not completely clear how 136 00:12:38,913 --> 00:12:44,715 you want to mark it. Right, you might think that this word is getting used as a 137 00:12:44,715 --> 00:12:50,492 discounting word, namely answering a potential objection. Some people might say 138 00:12:50,492 --> 00:12:56,121 he didn't have the authority to do that but you might think it's a positive 139 00:12:56,121 --> 00:13:01,853 evaluation, having authority is a good thing. And you might think that it's an 140 00:13:01,853 --> 00:13:07,169 argument marker because is a reason why he would have the ability to set up the 141 00:13:07,169 --> 00:13:12,752 monument namely that he had the authority. But he doesn't actually say openly any of 142 00:13:12,752 --> 00:13:18,069 those things so, I would probably mark that as a nothing but I think it's better 143 00:13:18,069 --> 00:13:22,366 just to put a question mark. Because sometimes, words are not going to have one 144 00:13:22,366 --> 00:13:26,462 clear function or another. You know, we're doing our best to put them into these 145 00:13:26,462 --> 00:13:30,091 little bins of the different types of words, but sometimes, they're not going to 146 00:13:30,402 --> 00:13:34,549 fall neatly into one or the other, and you just have to recognize that. Of course, 147 00:13:34,549 --> 00:13:38,541 when it comes to the quizzes, we're not going to ask you about those kinds of 148 00:13:38,541 --> 00:13:44,982 words, but it's worth knowing that they're there. Okay? Now. Let's move on. Setting 149 00:13:44,982 --> 00:13:51,327 aside for protection, what he described as some of the most remarkable land in the 150 00:13:51,327 --> 00:13:56,655 world. Again, what is that telling you? Setting aside for protection that it tells 151 00:13:56,655 --> 00:14:01,127 you why he used his authority to establish the monument. So again, we've got an 152 00:14:01,127 --> 00:14:05,828 implicit reason here but, notice there's just a space there's no actual word. There 153 00:14:05,828 --> 00:14:10,644 could be marked as an argument marker but still there's a separate argument here he 154 00:14:10,644 --> 00:14:15,230 set it aside for the protection. That was why he established the monument. That's 155 00:14:15,230 --> 00:14:20,104 why he used his authority to establish the monument. If you want to include that part 156 00:14:20,104 --> 00:14:25,211 of the argument as well. Okay? For protection. Protection again, that's going 157 00:14:25,211 --> 00:14:30,884 to be evaluative, right? Because to protect something is to keep it safe from 158 00:14:30,884 --> 00:14:36,855 harm. Harm is bad. So protecting it must be good. When you explain what protection 159 00:14:36,855 --> 00:14:42,378 is, you're going to need to use the words good and bad, as we saw in the first 160 00:14:42,378 --> 00:14:48,140 sentence. What about these little quotation marks. I love quotation marks 161 00:14:48,140 --> 00:14:54,442 you gotta watch out for them. What he described as some of the most remarkable 162 00:14:54,442 --> 00:15:00,987 land in the world. Why is Robert Redford quoting President Clinton and saying how 163 00:15:00,987 --> 00:15:06,519 Clinton described this land? Because if you're trying to convince Clinton and 164 00:15:06,519 --> 00:15:11,924 trying to convince the general public to try to convince Clinton, there's nothing 165 00:15:11,924 --> 00:15:16,928 better than quoting Clinton himself. I mean, after all, Clinton can't say, I'm 166 00:15:16,928 --> 00:15:21,399 not an authority. Right? So, those quotation marks and saying that he 167 00:15:21,399 --> 00:15:26,336 described it, that all amounts to assuring. He's assuring Clinton that, that 168 00:15:26,336 --> 00:15:32,726 has to be true because after all, you said it yourself. And then he says, I couldn't 169 00:15:32,726 --> 00:15:39,708 agree more. Well that's a different type of assuring. Remember when we saw that 170 00:15:39,708 --> 00:15:45,954 some assuring terms were authoritative. And other assuring terms were reflexive. 171 00:15:45,954 --> 00:15:51,187 Well quoting President Clinton is an authoritative assurance, it's citing an 172 00:15:51,187 --> 00:15:56,764 authority. I couldn't agree more says how much he agrees. Or how much certainty he 173 00:15:56,764 --> 00:16:01,585 has. It certainly suggests. And so he seems to be assuring you but on a 174 00:16:01,585 --> 00:16:07,231 different basis, Clinton and I both agree. We might disagree about other things, but 175 00:16:07,231 --> 00:16:12,740 we agree about this which gives you some reason to be sure that it must be true. 176 00:16:13,080 --> 00:16:20,699 Okay. We're through with two sentences. All right. Next. For over two decades. The 177 00:16:20,699 --> 00:16:27,470 word for is sometimes an argument here. Is it an argument marker here? No. How can 178 00:16:27,470 --> 00:16:32,608 you tell that? It's actually nothing here. But how can you tell that? Try 179 00:16:32,608 --> 00:16:38,470 substituting an argument marker. You can't say, because ove r two decades, many have 180 00:16:38,470 --> 00:16:43,681 fought battle over battle. It's not because. It's just saying, during that 181 00:16:43,681 --> 00:16:49,253 period. The term for, and the words after it, over two decades, are simply being 182 00:16:49,253 --> 00:16:55,260 used to indicate time. Not to indicate any kind of reason, in this case. So it should 183 00:16:55,260 --> 00:17:02,168 be marked as nothing. Many have fought battle after battle. Is that a guarding 184 00:17:02,168 --> 00:17:07,205 term? Sometimes many is a guarding term. Instead of saying all, you say many. But 185 00:17:07,205 --> 00:17:12,198 here you say many have fought battle after battle. Nobody thinks all have fought 186 00:17:12,198 --> 00:17:17,254 battle after battle to keep the mining conglomerates from despoiling the country. 187 00:17:17,254 --> 00:17:21,747 After all, the mining conglomerates themselves didn't, so, it can't be all. 188 00:17:21,747 --> 00:17:26,303 So, nobody would expect the word all. So in this case, the word many is not 189 00:17:26,303 --> 00:17:31,608 functioning to guard the term by weakening it, cuz it never started out as the strong 190 00:17:31,608 --> 00:17:37,037 claim all. There was nothing to weaken. They fought battle after battle. Well, you 191 00:17:37,037 --> 00:17:42,631 might think that battles are a bad thing. So you might mark that as e minus. 192 00:17:42,631 --> 00:17:48,374 Because, after all, conflict is a bad thing and in battles people get hurt and 193 00:17:48,374 --> 00:17:54,266 try to hurt each other. So to explain what a battle is you need to introduce an 194 00:17:54,266 --> 00:17:59,507 evaluative word. And what did they fight those battles for? To keep mining 195 00:17:59,507 --> 00:18:04,620 conglomerates from despoiling the treasures. Right? Again, to can be seen 196 00:18:04,620 --> 00:18:09,946 as, in order to. That's why they fought the battle. It explains the battle. Or 197 00:18:09,946 --> 00:18:15,130 because they wanted to keep the mining conglomerates from despoiling the 198 00:18:15,130 --> 00:18:21,024 countries. So, it looks like to there is indicating the premise in an argument that 199 00:18:21,024 --> 00:18:27,143 explains why they fought battle after battle. 'Kay? Mining conglomerates, is 200 00:18:27,143 --> 00:18:33,314 mining bad? No. Are conglomerates bad? Not necessarily. You can explain what a 201 00:18:33,314 --> 00:18:39,649 conglomerate is without talking about good or bad. From despoiling, now wait a 202 00:18:39,649 --> 00:18:45,655 minute, now we've got an evaluative term. It's an evaluative negative term. 203 00:18:45,655 --> 00:18:51,991 Despoiling means, spoiling things or making them bad. And what about treasures? 204 00:18:51,991 --> 00:18:58,244 Treasures is going to be an evaluative plus term because treasures are good 205 00:18:58,244 --> 00:19:04,480 things. And stunning. Well, stunning is not qui te so clear. Stunning means it 206 00:19:04,480 --> 00:19:10,571 stuns you. You react to it in a certain way. You're stunned. You look at it, and 207 00:19:10,571 --> 00:19:17,533 you feel, huh, and you stop still again. Just look at the pictures of this country. 208 00:19:17,533 --> 00:19:28,251 It is stunning. But to call it stunning. Is that evaluative? Well, you can get 209 00:19:28,251 --> 00:19:34,260 stunned by how bad something is. And so, it's not clear that stunning in itself is 210 00:19:34,260 --> 00:19:40,196 evaluation. Clearly, Redford, in using the word stunning, is talking about it being 211 00:19:40,196 --> 00:19:46,280 stunningly good. But the word stunning by itself doesn't seem to be evaluative. Now, 212 00:19:46,280 --> 00:19:52,197 the next word of the last sentence in this paragraph. Just a temporal indicator, so 213 00:19:52,197 --> 00:19:57,682 that's nothing. We thought, okay? Thought means it's not really true. He's just 214 00:19:57,682 --> 00:20:03,166 guarding it. It's not really true that some of it was safe. We thought it was. 215 00:20:03,166 --> 00:20:08,482 Some of it was safe, or even at least some of it was safe. Now that's going to be a 216 00:20:08,482 --> 00:20:13,021 guarding term, cuz it's not saying all of it was safe. It's just a little part of it 217 00:20:13,021 --> 00:20:18,465 and that'll become important later in the argument. Whoa! Look at this diagram! It's 218 00:20:18,465 --> 00:20:24,869 got letters all over the place and they're running into each other. That shows you 219 00:20:24,869 --> 00:20:31,195 what close analysis does. When you start looking in detail, a lot of the different 220 00:20:31,195 --> 00:20:37,287 words are doing things that you can find out by trying to put them into these 221 00:20:37,287 --> 00:20:43,457 different categories. So, we've finished the first paragraph. An entire paragraph. 222 00:20:43,457 --> 00:00:00,000 Oh my God. Oh Joy!