[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:02.32,0:00:08.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So far, we've looked at the language of\Nargument in some detail. because we've
Dialogue: 0,0:00:08.12,0:00:13.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,separated the reason markers from\Nconclusion markers. And we've talked about
Dialogue: 0,0:00:13.30,0:00:18.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,assuring and guarding and discounting and\Nevaluative words. So we've picked out a
Dialogue: 0,0:00:18.74,0:00:24.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lot of different words in language that\Nplay distinct roles in arguments. But what
Dialogue: 0,0:00:24.25,0:00:29.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we need to do for a real argument is to\Nbring it all together and show how these
Dialogue: 0,0:00:29.69,0:00:34.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,types of words can work together in a\Nsingle passage. And to do that, we're
Dialogue: 0,0:00:34.66,0:00:40.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,going to learn a method called close\Nanalysis. And what you do with close
Dialogue: 0,0:00:40.14,0:00:47.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,analysis is you simply take a passage and\Nyou mark the words in that passage that
Dialogue: 0,0:00:47.42,0:00:54.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,play those roles. so a reason maker you\Ncan mark an R and a conclusion marker you
Dialogue: 0,0:00:54.87,0:01:02.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can mark with a C, assuring term you mark\Nwith an A, a guarding term you mark with
Dialogue: 0,0:01:02.23,0:01:08.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,G, a discounting term you mark with D, an\Nevaluative term you mark with E. And if
Dialogue: 0,0:01:08.36,0:01:13.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's clear, you put a plus or a minus to\Nindicate whether it's positive evaluation
Dialogue: 0,0:01:13.94,0:01:19.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or negative evaluation. Now, these marks\Nwill just be scratching the surface.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:19.08,0:01:24.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's obviously a lot more that you can\Ndo, and need to do, in order to fully
Dialogue: 0,0:01:24.44,0:01:29.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,understand the passage. So, when it's a\Ndiscounting term, you ought to think about
Dialogue: 0,0:01:29.81,0:01:35.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which objection is being discounted. And\Nyou also ought to think about the
Dialogue: 0,0:01:35.00,0:01:41.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rhetorical moves, the metaphors and irony.\NWe'll look at rhetorical questions. And
Dialogue: 0,0:01:41.04,0:01:46.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we'll basically go through the passage\Nvery carefully word by word in order to
Dialogue: 0,0:01:46.100,0:01:51.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,figure out what's going on in that\Npassage. So, how do you learn the
Dialogue: 0,0:01:51.75,0:01:56.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,technique? The answer is very simple. You\Npractice, and then you practice again. And
Dialogue: 0,0:01:56.86,0:02:01.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then you practice, and practice, and\Npractice and practice. Practice won't make
Dialogue: 0,0:02:01.72,0:02:06.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,perfect, because nothing's perfect. But\Npractice will surely help a lot, and we'll
Dialogue: 0,0:02:06.77,0:02:11.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,get better and better the more we\Npractice. So in this lecture, what we're
Dialogue: 0,0:02:11.55,0:02:16.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,going to do is go through one example in a\Nlot of detail and mark it up very
Dialogue: 0,0:02:16.66,0:02:22.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,carefully in order to practice the method\Nof close analysis. The particular example
Dialogue: 0,0:02:22.40,0:02:27.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we chose for this lecture is by Robert\NRedford. It's an opiad that was written
Dialogue: 0,0:02:27.99,0:02:33.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for the Washington Post. We chose it\Nbecause it's an interesting issue. It's
Dialogue: 0,0:02:33.17,0:02:37.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about the environment. But it's not an\Nissue that people will necessarily have
Dialogue: 0,0:02:37.84,0:02:42.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,very strong emotions about. Because you\Nmight not even know the particular part of
Dialogue: 0,0:02:42.47,0:02:47.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the environment that he's talking about.\NWe also choose it because it's a really
Dialogue: 0,0:02:47.27,0:02:52.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,good argument. You learn how to analyze\Narguments, and how to formulate your own
Dialogue: 0,0:02:52.31,0:02:57.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arguments by looking at good examples. Of\Ncourse it's fun to tear down bad examples,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:57.61,0:03:02.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but we need a nice model of a good\Nargument in order to see what's lacking in
Dialogue: 0,0:03:02.59,0:03:07.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the arguments that are bad. So we're going\Nto go through an example partly because
Dialogue: 0,0:03:07.63,0:03:12.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's actually a pretty good argument.\NWe're also going to go through this
Dialogue: 0,0:03:12.21,0:03:17.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,passage because it's really thick with\Nthese argument words. So, you'll see that
Dialogue: 0,0:03:17.51,0:03:23.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we're marking a lot of different things,\Nand we'll have to go through it paragraph
Dialogue: 0,0:03:23.02,0:03:28.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by paragraph, and sentence by sentence,\Nand word by word, in great detail. This
Dialogue: 0,0:03:28.13,0:03:33.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lecture will seem like it's looking at the\Npassage with a microscope. and that's the
Dialogue: 0,0:03:33.97,0:03:39.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,point, to learn to analyze with a\Nmicroscope, the passages where people give
Dialogue: 0,0:03:39.01,0:03:44.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arguments. Okay. So the first sentence is,\Njust over a year ago, President Clinton
Dialogue: 0,0:03:44.44,0:03:49.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,created the Grand Staircase Escalante\NNational Monument to protect once and for
Dialogue: 0,0:03:49.96,0:03:56.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,all some of Utah's extraordinary red rock\Ncanyon country. Word number one, just.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:56.44,0:04:02.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, justice is a good thing, right? So\Nthat must be an evaluative word. No. One
Dialogue: 0,0:04:02.34,0:04:08.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the first lessons in close analysis, is\Nthat simply because you have the word
Dialogue: 0,0:04:08.48,0:04:14.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,just, doesn't mean you're talking about\Njustice. When he says, just over a year
Dialogue: 0,0:04:14.38,0:04:20.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ago, he means slightly over a year ago, or\Nsomewhat over a year ago, or sometime over
Dialogue: 0,0:04:20.75,0:04:26.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a year ago. So maybe he's guarding. You\Nmight want to mark this one as a guarding
Dialogue: 0,0:04:26.88,0:04:32.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,term by putting a G out there. But. He's\Nnot using an evaluation. To say, just over
Dialogue: 0,0:04:32.55,0:04:37.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a year ago. Well, why would he guard?\NBecause, he's not very precise. He's not
Dialogue: 0,0:04:37.48,0:04:42.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,going to say, seventeen days over a year\Nago. He's saying, just over a year ago, so
Dialogue: 0,0:04:42.61,0:04:47.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that nobody will raise a question at this\Npoint. He does not want people raising
Dialogue: 0,0:04:47.93,0:04:52.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,questions this early in the op-ed. So\Nlet's keep going. Just over a year ago,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:52.93,0:04:59.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,President Clinton created the Grand\NStaircase-Escalante National Monument to
Dialogue: 0,0:04:59.13,0:05:05.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,protect once and for all, some of the\Nextraordinary red rock country. Okay. What
Dialogue: 0,0:05:05.96,0:05:13.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about the word, to. Might seem like not\Nmuch cuz it's such a short word. But it's
Dialogue: 0,0:05:13.37,0:05:19.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,actually doing a lot of work there if you\Nthink about it. We actually I think should
Dialogue: 0,0:05:19.31,0:05:24.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,market as a, an argument marker of some\Nsort. Is it a reason marker or is it a
Dialogue: 0,0:05:24.75,0:05:30.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclusion marker? We'll come back to\Nthat. But first let's get clear that it's
Dialogue: 0,0:05:30.26,0:05:35.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an argument marker of some sort. When he\Nsays that he created the monument to
Dialogue: 0,0:05:35.78,0:05:40.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,protect once and for all, he means in\Norder to protect, because he wanted to
Dialogue: 0,0:05:40.75,0:05:45.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,protect, once and for all, some of that\Ncountry. It's an explanation of why he
Dialogue: 0,0:05:45.79,0:05:50.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,created it. It's giving you the\Nteleological explanation, which tells you
Dialogue: 0,0:05:50.56,0:05:56.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the purpose for which he created it. So,\Nthe bit that comes out protect once and
Dialogue: 0,0:05:56.52,0:06:02.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for all some of the country, is the reason\Nwhy he created it. It explains the
Dialogue: 0,0:06:02.94,0:06:12.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclusion that he did create it. So this\Nis a reason marker. Now the next word,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:12.37,0:06:19.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,protect. Well you might think that protect\Nis a neutral word because after all,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:19.84,0:06:25.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,protectionism is criticized by some\Npeople. But actually to protect something
Dialogue: 0,0:06:25.39,0:06:30.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is to keep it safe. To keep it safe from\Nharm to keep it safe from bad things
Dialogue: 0,0:06:30.94,0:06:36.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happening to it. So, to explain what\Ncounts a protection and what doesn't count
Dialogue: 0,0:06:36.57,0:06:42.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as protection you have to cite what's good\Nor bad and that makes it an evaluative
Dialogue: 0,0:06:42.48,0:06:48.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,word. And, in this case protecting is a\Ngood thing so, it get's marked as E plus.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:48.10,0:06:56.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Okay, the next words are once and for all.\NWhat is once and for all do. Nothing. Some
Dialogue: 0,0:06:56.87,0:07:03.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of these words are going to get marked as\Nnothing whatsoever. Because once and for
Dialogue: 0,0:07:03.90,0:07:10.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,all doesn't guard. It says, once and for\Nall, its the absolute limit, but the next
Dialogue: 0,0:07:10.66,0:07:16.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,word. Some, what does that do? That\Nguards. It's saying that what's protected
Dialogue: 0,0:07:16.62,0:07:22.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is not all of Utah's red rock country ,\Nit's only some of it and it's important
Dialogue: 0,0:07:22.42,0:07:28.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for him to guard that, because he wants to\Nsay later on, as we'll see, that there's
Dialogue: 0,0:07:28.45,0:07:34.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lots of it outside the monument that's not\Ngetting protected. So he wants to guard it
Dialogue: 0,0:07:34.77,0:07:40.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and say it's not all that's going to be\Nimportant to his argument. Now, Utah's
Dialogue: 0,0:07:40.85,0:07:45.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pretty neutral, unless you're from that\Nstate, then you love it, and you might say
Dialogue: 0,0:07:45.94,0:07:50.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's an evaluative word, but let's skip\Nthat group of people right now.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:50.53,0:07:55.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Extraordinary. What about extraordinary?\NIs that an evaluative word? Might seem to
Dialogue: 0,0:07:55.63,0:08:00.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be an evaluative word, because clearly,\Nwhat Redford means is extraordinarily
Dialogue: 0,0:08:00.48,0:08:05.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,beautiful or extraordinarily good, red\Nrock country. But the word extraordinary,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:05.45,0:08:10.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,doesn't say extraordinarily good. You can\Nhave things that are extraordinarily bad.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:10.81,0:08:16.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To say it's extraordinary is to say it's\Nout of the ordinary. And the red rock
Dialogue: 0,0:08:16.00,0:08:21.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,country might be extraordinarily ugly. So\Nthe word extraordinary, itself, is not by
Dialogue: 0,0:08:21.40,0:08:26.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,itself, an evaluative word, so it should\Nbe marked as nothing. And red rock
Dialogue: 0,0:08:26.25,0:08:30.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,country, also, is going to be neutral.\NIt's beautiful stuff, but simply to
Dialogue: 0,0:08:30.98,0:08:35.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,describe it, as made out of red rock\Ndoesn't say that it's beautiful, even
Dialogue: 0,0:08:35.84,0:08:43.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,though, we all know that it is. Just look\Nat the picture. So, now we've finished a
Dialogue: 0,0:08:43.53,0:08:50.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whole sentence. Isn't that great? A whole\Nsentence! All right! And all we did was
Dialogue: 0,0:08:50.83,0:08:56.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,find six things to mark in that sentence.\NWell, four were marked and two were
Dialogue: 0,0:08:56.16,0:09:01.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,nothing, but it shows you that you can go\Nthrough a single sentence and do a lot of
Dialogue: 0,0:09:01.98,0:09:07.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,analysis to figure out what's going on,\Nand we're just getting started. Now let's
Dialogue: 0,0:09:07.59,0:09:13.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,move on to the second sentence. So it's in\Nresponse to plans, of the Dutch company to
Dialogue: 0,0:09:13.98,0:09:20.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mine coal, President Clinton used his\Nauthority, to establish the new monument.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:20.02,0:09:25.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And so on. Let's go to, in response to.\NWhat does that tell you? It tells you,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:25.63,0:09:31.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that what's coming after it, explains why\NPresident Clinton used his authority. It
Dialogue: 0,0:09:31.78,0:09:37.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was a response to the plans of the Dutch\NCompany. Which means that, it's an
Dialogue: 0,0:09:37.39,0:09:43.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,explanation. Notice that the previous\Nexplanation says, why Clinton wa nted to
Dialogue: 0,0:09:43.16,0:09:48.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,do it, in general. This explanation tells\Nyou why President Clinton did it at that
Dialogue: 0,0:09:48.61,0:09:53.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,particular time rather than earlier or\Nlater. It's because he was responding to
Dialogue: 0,0:09:53.75,0:09:58.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,particular plans by a particular company.\NSo the end response to, is an argument
Dialogue: 0,0:09:58.88,0:10:04.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,marker. Now, is it a reason marker or a\Nconclusion marker? Well, the conclusion,
Dialogue: 0,0:10:04.06,0:10:09.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the thing that's getting explained, is\Nthat Clinton used his authority. So this
Dialogue: 0,0:10:09.40,0:10:14.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,must be a reason or a premise marker. You\Ncan also put P for premise marker, or R
Dialogue: 0,0:10:14.87,0:10:20.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for reason marker. Now, in response to\Nplans of the Dutch Company, Andalex to
Dialogue: 0,0:10:20.00,0:10:25.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mine coal on the Kaiparowits Plateau,\NPresident Clinton used his authority under
Dialogue: 0,0:10:25.48,0:10:31.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the Antiquities Act to establish the new\Nmonument. Now this is actually a pretty
Dialogue: 0,0:10:31.05,0:10:37.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tricky one. We know that, the plans of the\Ncompany are the premise that explains the
Dialogue: 0,0:10:37.21,0:10:41.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclusion that Clinton used his\Nauthority. But what's the word,
Dialogue: 0,0:10:41.73,0:10:47.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,underdoing. Well under means is the\NAntiquities Act that gave him that
Dialogue: 0,0:10:47.20,0:10:52.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,authority. That explains why he had that\Nauthority and justified him in doing what
Dialogue: 0,0:10:52.23,0:10:57.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he was doing namely establishing the\Nmonument. So, the word under suggests that
Dialogue: 0,0:10:57.01,0:11:01.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there is another argument in the\Nbackground here that the Antiquities Act
Dialogue: 0,0:11:01.54,0:11:06.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,gives the president the authority to\Nestablish monuments and President Clinton
Dialogue: 0,0:11:06.38,0:11:11.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,used that authority. So, the Antiquities\NAct is again a premise or as I said you
Dialogue: 0,0:11:11.22,0:11:16.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can call it a reason marker for the\Npremise that the Antiquities Act gives the
Dialogue: 0,0:11:16.52,0:11:21.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,President that authority and that\Njustifies Clinton in using his authority,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:21.84,0:11:27.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or explains why he was able to establish\Nthe monument. And the word to also
Dialogue: 0,0:11:27.17,0:11:32.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,indicates that what comes after it is,\Nestablishing the new monument, that's what
Dialogue: 0,0:11:32.85,0:11:38.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he was trying to do. That also is an\Nargument that explains why he did it. He
Dialogue: 0,0:11:38.25,0:11:43.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,had the authority. But you don't always\Nexercise your authority. Right? And so,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:43.63,0:11:49.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the point of exercising the authority, the\Nreason why he exercise his authority was
Dialogue: 0,0:11:49.45,0:11:55.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to establish the new monument. Again, it\Nmight seem tricky to keep siting the word
Dialogue: 0,0:11:55.12,0:12:00.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to as an argument marker but think about\Nit, you can sub stitute in order to. He
Dialogue: 0,0:12:00.58,0:12:05.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,uses authority in order to establish the\Nnew monument. Or, because he wanted to
Dialogue: 0,0:12:05.93,0:12:11.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,establish the new monument. And we learned\Na few lectures ago, that if you can
Dialogue: 0,0:12:11.20,0:12:16.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,substitute another argument marker for\Nthis particular word, then that shows that
Dialogue: 0,0:12:16.75,0:12:22.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in this case, the word to is getting used\Nas an argument marker. In this case the
Dialogue: 0,0:12:22.30,0:12:27.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premise, because it's his wanting to\Nestablish the monument that explains why
Dialogue: 0,0:12:27.57,0:12:33.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he used his authority. Okay? Here's a\Ntricky one. What about the word authority?
Dialogue: 0,0:12:33.19,0:12:38.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well that's a really trick word and\Nsometimes it's not completely clear how
Dialogue: 0,0:12:38.91,0:12:44.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you want to mark it. Right, you might\Nthink that this word is getting used as a
Dialogue: 0,0:12:44.72,0:12:50.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,discounting word, namely answering a\Npotential objection. Some people might say
Dialogue: 0,0:12:50.49,0:12:56.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he didn't have the authority to do that\Nbut you might think it's a positive
Dialogue: 0,0:12:56.12,0:13:01.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,evaluation, having authority is a good\Nthing. And you might think that it's an
Dialogue: 0,0:13:01.85,0:13:07.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument marker because is a reason why he\Nwould have the ability to set up the
Dialogue: 0,0:13:07.17,0:13:12.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,monument namely that he had the authority.\NBut he doesn't actually say openly any of
Dialogue: 0,0:13:12.75,0:13:18.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,those things so, I would probably mark\Nthat as a nothing but I think it's better
Dialogue: 0,0:13:18.07,0:13:22.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,just to put a question mark. Because\Nsometimes, words are not going to have one
Dialogue: 0,0:13:22.37,0:13:26.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,clear function or another. You know, we're\Ndoing our best to put them into these
Dialogue: 0,0:13:26.46,0:13:30.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,little bins of the different types of\Nwords, but sometimes, they're not going to
Dialogue: 0,0:13:30.40,0:13:34.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fall neatly into one or the other, and you\Njust have to recognize that. Of course,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:34.55,0:13:38.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when it comes to the quizzes, we're not\Ngoing to ask you about those kinds of
Dialogue: 0,0:13:38.54,0:13:44.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,words, but it's worth knowing that they're\Nthere. Okay? Now. Let's move on. Setting
Dialogue: 0,0:13:44.98,0:13:51.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,aside for protection, what he described as\Nsome of the most remarkable land in the
Dialogue: 0,0:13:51.33,0:13:56.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,world. Again, what is that telling you?\NSetting aside for protection that it tells
Dialogue: 0,0:13:56.66,0:14:01.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you why he used his authority to establish\Nthe monument. So again, we've got an
Dialogue: 0,0:14:01.13,0:14:05.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,implicit reason here but, notice there's\Njust a space there's no actual word. There
Dialogue: 0,0:14:05.83,0:14:10.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,could be marked as an argument marker but\Nstill there's a separate argument here he
Dialogue: 0,0:14:10.64,0:14:15.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,set it aside for the protection. That was\Nwhy he established the monument. That's
Dialogue: 0,0:14:15.23,0:14:20.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,why he used his authority to establish the\Nmonument. If you want to include that part
Dialogue: 0,0:14:20.10,0:14:25.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the argument as well. Okay? For\Nprotection. Protection again, that's going
Dialogue: 0,0:14:25.21,0:14:30.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to be evaluative, right? Because to\Nprotect something is to keep it safe from
Dialogue: 0,0:14:30.88,0:14:36.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,harm. Harm is bad. So protecting it must\Nbe good. When you explain what protection
Dialogue: 0,0:14:36.86,0:14:42.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is, you're going to need to use the words\Ngood and bad, as we saw in the first
Dialogue: 0,0:14:42.38,0:14:48.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sentence. What about these little\Nquotation marks. I love quotation marks
Dialogue: 0,0:14:48.14,0:14:54.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you gotta watch out for them. What he\Ndescribed as some of the most remarkable
Dialogue: 0,0:14:54.44,0:15:00.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,land in the world. Why is Robert Redford\Nquoting President Clinton and saying how
Dialogue: 0,0:15:00.99,0:15:06.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Clinton described this land? Because if\Nyou're trying to convince Clinton and
Dialogue: 0,0:15:06.52,0:15:11.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,trying to convince the general public to\Ntry to convince Clinton, there's nothing
Dialogue: 0,0:15:11.92,0:15:16.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,better than quoting Clinton himself. I\Nmean, after all, Clinton can't say, I'm
Dialogue: 0,0:15:16.93,0:15:21.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not an authority. Right? So, those\Nquotation marks and saying that he
Dialogue: 0,0:15:21.40,0:15:26.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,described it, that all amounts to\Nassuring. He's assuring Clinton that, that
Dialogue: 0,0:15:26.34,0:15:32.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,has to be true because after all, you said\Nit yourself. And then he says, I couldn't
Dialogue: 0,0:15:32.73,0:15:39.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,agree more. Well that's a different type\Nof assuring. Remember when we saw that
Dialogue: 0,0:15:39.71,0:15:45.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,some assuring terms were authoritative.\NAnd other assuring terms were reflexive.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:45.95,0:15:51.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well quoting President Clinton is an\Nauthoritative assurance, it's citing an
Dialogue: 0,0:15:51.19,0:15:56.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,authority. I couldn't agree more says how\Nmuch he agrees. Or how much certainty he
Dialogue: 0,0:15:56.76,0:16:01.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,has. It certainly suggests. And so he\Nseems to be assuring you but on a
Dialogue: 0,0:16:01.58,0:16:07.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,different basis, Clinton and I both agree.\NWe might disagree about other things, but
Dialogue: 0,0:16:07.23,0:16:12.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we agree about this which gives you some\Nreason to be sure that it must be true.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:13.08,0:16:20.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Okay. We're through with two sentences.\NAll right. Next. For over two decades. The
Dialogue: 0,0:16:20.70,0:16:27.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,word for is sometimes an argument here. Is\Nit an argument marker here? No. How can
Dialogue: 0,0:16:27.47,0:16:32.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you tell that? It's actually nothing here.\NBut how can you tell that? Try
Dialogue: 0,0:16:32.61,0:16:38.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,substituting an argument marker. You can't\Nsay, because ove r two decades, many have
Dialogue: 0,0:16:38.47,0:16:43.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fought battle over battle. It's not\Nbecause. It's just saying, during that
Dialogue: 0,0:16:43.68,0:16:49.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,period. The term for, and the words after\Nit, over two decades, are simply being
Dialogue: 0,0:16:49.25,0:16:55.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,used to indicate time. Not to indicate any\Nkind of reason, in this case. So it should
Dialogue: 0,0:16:55.26,0:17:02.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be marked as nothing. Many have fought\Nbattle after battle. Is that a guarding
Dialogue: 0,0:17:02.17,0:17:07.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,term? Sometimes many is a guarding term.\NInstead of saying all, you say many. But
Dialogue: 0,0:17:07.20,0:17:12.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,here you say many have fought battle after\Nbattle. Nobody thinks all have fought
Dialogue: 0,0:17:12.20,0:17:17.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,battle after battle to keep the mining\Nconglomerates from despoiling the country.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:17.25,0:17:21.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,After all, the mining conglomerates\Nthemselves didn't, so, it can't be all.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:21.75,0:17:26.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, nobody would expect the word all. So\Nin this case, the word many is not
Dialogue: 0,0:17:26.30,0:17:31.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,functioning to guard the term by weakening\Nit, cuz it never started out as the strong
Dialogue: 0,0:17:31.61,0:17:37.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,claim all. There was nothing to weaken.\NThey fought battle after battle. Well, you
Dialogue: 0,0:17:37.04,0:17:42.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,might think that battles are a bad thing.\NSo you might mark that as e minus.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:42.63,0:17:48.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Because, after all, conflict is a bad\Nthing and in battles people get hurt and
Dialogue: 0,0:17:48.37,0:17:54.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,try to hurt each other. So to explain what\Na battle is you need to introduce an
Dialogue: 0,0:17:54.27,0:17:59.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,evaluative word. And what did they fight\Nthose battles for? To keep mining
Dialogue: 0,0:17:59.51,0:18:04.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conglomerates from despoiling the\Ntreasures. Right? Again, to can be seen
Dialogue: 0,0:18:04.62,0:18:09.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as, in order to. That's why they fought\Nthe battle. It explains the battle. Or
Dialogue: 0,0:18:09.95,0:18:15.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because they wanted to keep the mining\Nconglomerates from despoiling the
Dialogue: 0,0:18:15.13,0:18:21.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,countries. So, it looks like to there is\Nindicating the premise in an argument that
Dialogue: 0,0:18:21.02,0:18:27.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,explains why they fought battle after\Nbattle. 'Kay? Mining conglomerates, is
Dialogue: 0,0:18:27.14,0:18:33.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mining bad? No. Are conglomerates bad? Not\Nnecessarily. You can explain what a
Dialogue: 0,0:18:33.31,0:18:39.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conglomerate is without talking about good\Nor bad. From despoiling, now wait a
Dialogue: 0,0:18:39.65,0:18:45.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,minute, now we've got an evaluative term.\NIt's an evaluative negative term.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:45.66,0:18:51.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Despoiling means, spoiling things or\Nmaking them bad. And what about treasures?
Dialogue: 0,0:18:51.99,0:18:58.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Treasures is going to be an evaluative\Nplus term because treasures are good
Dialogue: 0,0:18:58.24,0:19:04.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,things. And stunning. Well, stunning is\Nnot qui te so clear. Stunning means it
Dialogue: 0,0:19:04.48,0:19:10.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stuns you. You react to it in a certain\Nway. You're stunned. You look at it, and
Dialogue: 0,0:19:10.57,0:19:17.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you feel, huh, and you stop still again.\NJust look at the pictures of this country.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:17.53,0:19:28.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It is stunning. But to call it stunning.\NIs that evaluative? Well, you can get
Dialogue: 0,0:19:28.25,0:19:34.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stunned by how bad something is. And so,\Nit's not clear that stunning in itself is
Dialogue: 0,0:19:34.26,0:19:40.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,evaluation. Clearly, Redford, in using the\Nword stunning, is talking about it being
Dialogue: 0,0:19:40.20,0:19:46.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stunningly good. But the word stunning by\Nitself doesn't seem to be evaluative. Now,
Dialogue: 0,0:19:46.28,0:19:52.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the next word of the last sentence in this\Nparagraph. Just a temporal indicator, so
Dialogue: 0,0:19:52.20,0:19:57.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's nothing. We thought, okay? Thought\Nmeans it's not really true. He's just
Dialogue: 0,0:19:57.68,0:20:03.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,guarding it. It's not really true that\Nsome of it was safe. We thought it was.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:03.17,0:20:08.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Some of it was safe, or even at least some\Nof it was safe. Now that's going to be a
Dialogue: 0,0:20:08.48,0:20:13.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,guarding term, cuz it's not saying all of\Nit was safe. It's just a little part of it
Dialogue: 0,0:20:13.02,0:20:18.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and that'll become important later in the\Nargument. Whoa! Look at this diagram! It's
Dialogue: 0,0:20:18.46,0:20:24.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,got letters all over the place and they're\Nrunning into each other. That shows you
Dialogue: 0,0:20:24.87,0:20:31.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what close analysis does. When you start\Nlooking in detail, a lot of the different
Dialogue: 0,0:20:31.20,0:20:37.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,words are doing things that you can find\Nout by trying to put them into these
Dialogue: 0,0:20:37.29,0:20:43.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,different categories. So, we've finished\Nthe first paragraph. An entire paragraph.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:43.46,0:00:00.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Oh my God. Oh Joy!