[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:02.62,0:00:09.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,On to the second paragraph. The first\Nsentence is really simple, not so. Of
Dialogue: 0,0:00:08.78,0:00:15.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,course. it's referring back to the last\Nsentence of the first paragraph. We said,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:15.74,0:00:22.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,now we thought at least some of it was\Nsafe. And saying, no, it wasn't safe. So,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:22.43,0:00:28.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what are we going to say about this\Nsentence? Well, what about the little
Dialogue: 0,0:00:28.50,0:00:33.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,word, so? So, can be an argument marker.\NIt can indicate that what follows it, is a
Dialogue: 0,0:00:33.90,0:00:38.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclusion. But, is that what it's doing\Nhere? I don't think so. As we just saw
Dialogue: 0,0:00:38.92,0:00:44.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like in, I don't think so, the word, so,\Ncan be used in many ways, where it's not
Dialogue: 0,0:00:44.01,0:00:49.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an argument marker. And this is saying,\Nit's not so. It's not that way. So there's
Dialogue: 0,0:00:49.23,0:00:56.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,no argument here. So that would get marked\Nwith a big N for nothing. Now, what about
Dialogue: 0,0:00:56.08,0:01:05.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,shocking, as it sounds, shocking? Well, is\Nshocking always bad? Remember we saw in
Dialogue: 0,0:01:05.75,0:01:10.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the first paragraph the word stunning.\NWell, stunning stuns you, and shocking
Dialogue: 0,0:01:10.54,0:01:15.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,shocks you. And it's telling you that you\Nhave some kind of reaction. But it's not
Dialogue: 0,0:01:15.30,0:01:19.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,telling you whether that reaction is due\Nto the thing being good, or the thing
Dialogue: 0,0:01:19.88,0:01:23.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,being bad. You can get shocked by\Nsomething good or bad. It can be
Dialogue: 0,0:01:23.70,0:01:28.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,shockingly good, or shockingly bad. And so\Nthe word shocking by itself. Doesn't
Dialogue: 0,0:01:28.37,0:01:34.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,indicate that it's e plus or e minus, so\Nagain, you get a nothing. I mention it
Dialogue: 0,0:01:34.21,0:01:40.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,only because it's clear that Robert\NRedford thinks that shocking is bad, that
Dialogue: 0,0:01:40.06,0:01:45.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this should not have happened. He's\Nsuggesting that it's bad. But the word
Dialogue: 0,0:01:45.60,0:01:55.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,shocking, itself, is not an evaluative\Nword. What about, as it sounds? Well, he's
Dialogue: 0,0:01:55.69,0:02:00.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,saying that it sounds that way. He's not\Nsaying that it is that way. He's not
Dialogue: 0,0:02:00.54,0:02:05.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,saying that it may sound that way. He's\Nsaying it does sound that way, which is to
Dialogue: 0,0:02:05.80,0:02:10.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say, it seems that way to him. Which is\Nnot to say it really is true, so he's
Dialogue: 0,0:02:10.79,0:02:16.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,guarding the client. He's not saying that\Nit really is shocking. He's saying that it
Dialogue: 0,0:02:16.31,0:02:20.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,seems shocking. So he's guarding the\Nclient, in order to avoid someone
Dialogue: 0,0:02:20.90,0:02:26.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,objecting that it's not really all that\Nshocking, after all. Say, well it sounds
Dialogue: 0,0:02:26.09,0:02:31.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,shocking, and in order to make that part\Nof his argument mo re defensible. Because
Dialogue: 0,0:02:31.28,0:02:36.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's not really essential to his argument,\Nthat it's shocking or not. So what's
Dialogue: 0,0:02:36.55,0:02:42.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,supposed to be shocking? Clinton's Bureau\Nof Land Management, or BLM, has approved
Dialogue: 0,0:02:42.59,0:02:48.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,oil drilling within the monument. Notice\Nthat there is no guarding at all here he
Dialogue: 0,0:02:48.54,0:02:53.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,just states it. They did it they approved\Noil drilling within the monument. And,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:53.75,0:02:59.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's because it's not really something\Nhe is arguing for. He's actually opposed
Dialogue: 0,0:02:59.15,0:03:04.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to it. It's something that his opponents\Nmight support but he doesn't so, he
Dialogue: 0,0:03:04.16,0:03:09.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,doesn't want to guard it since he wants to\Nsay it just happened as a matter of fact
Dialogue: 0,0:03:09.76,0:03:14.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that they approved it so, there's I\Nnothing that we need to mark in that
Dialogue: 0,0:03:14.57,0:03:20.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,particular sentence. Next sentence. BLM or\Nthe Bureau of Land Management has given
Dialogue: 0,0:03:20.20,0:03:25.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Conoco Incorporated, a subsidiary of the\Ncorporate giant DuPont permission to drill
Dialogue: 0,0:03:25.22,0:03:30.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for oil and gas in the heart of the new\Nmonument. Well, there's a lot going on
Dialogue: 0,0:03:30.98,0:03:37.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,here that we could mention, no, BLM has\Ngiven Conoco a subsidiary that explains
Dialogue: 0,0:03:37.30,0:03:44.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,how they got permission by siding the BLM.\NIt's a subsidiary of the corporate giant
Dialogue: 0,0:03:44.01,0:03:50.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,DuPont. He's certainly suggesting that\Ngiant suggested that he's the small guy,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:50.32,0:03:56.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you know, up against the big corporate\Ngiant. It might even has some connotation
Dialogue: 0,0:03:56.72,0:04:03.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of corporate giants being bad, but it\Ndoesn't actually say that. And so, again
Dialogue: 0,0:04:03.10,0:04:11.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,giant should be marked as nothing. What\Nabout permission? To say that someone's
Dialogue: 0,0:04:11.55,0:04:16.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,permitted to do something, is to say that\Nit's not wrong. That's what permitted
Dialogue: 0,0:04:16.42,0:04:21.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,means. Now of course, if you're talking\Nabout a legal permission, then to say that
Dialogue: 0,0:04:21.40,0:04:26.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's permitted is to say that it's not\Nlegally wrong. It's not forbidden by law.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:26.33,0:04:30.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It still might be morally wrong but at\Nleast it's legally permitted means it's
Dialogue: 0,0:04:30.90,0:04:35.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not legally forbidden. And so if forbidden\Nand wrong are evaluative words, to deny
Dialogue: 0,0:04:35.58,0:04:39.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,them and say it's not wrong looks like an\Nevaluative as well. But one of the
Dialogue: 0,0:04:39.97,0:04:44.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,interesting things about this evaluative\Nword is it's clear whether it's positive
Dialogue: 0,0:04:44.71,0:04:49.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or negative. It means it's not wrong, but\Nthat doesn't mean it is good or is right.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:49.85,0:04:54.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It simply means it's not forbidden. So,\Nit's not clear whether to put plus or
Dialogue: 0,0:04:54.76,0:05:01.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,minus. I'll just leave it as a plain E in\Nthat case, okay? Now, what did they have
Dialogue: 0,0:05:01.64,0:05:06.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,permission to do to drill for oil and gas\Nin the heart of the new monument, okay?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:06.52,0:05:11.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's what the permission was a\Npermission to do. The word to there is not
Dialogue: 0,0:05:11.09,0:05:15.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,being used as an argument marker in this\Ncase because you can't say they get
Dialogue: 0,0:05:15.79,0:05:20.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,permission in order to, right? What they\Ngave them permission to do was to drill,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:20.54,0:05:24.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,okay? What about drill? Well clearly\NRobert Redford doesn't want them to drill.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:24.86,0:05:28.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So he thinks that's bad. But he doesn't\Nsay it's bad. He just calls it drilling.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:28.92,0:05:33.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And they're drilling for oil and gas. Well\Na lot of people think that oil and gas are
Dialogue: 0,0:05:33.33,0:05:37.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,good things. But they don't say here that\Nthey're good. They're simply saying that
Dialogue: 0,0:05:37.54,0:05:42.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they're oil and gas. The coolest part of\Nthis cuz I think, is that metaphor at the
Dialogue: 0,0:05:42.37,0:05:47.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,end. I mean you have this image that there\Nis this poor monument and somebody is
Dialogue: 0,0:05:47.11,0:05:52.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,drilling right in its heart you know like,\Nwhat could be crueler than to drill in the
Dialogue: 0,0:05:52.14,0:05:56.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,heart of a young monument the poor\Ninnocent thing. So, this metaphor of the
Dialogue: 0,0:05:56.52,0:06:01.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,heart is a nice rhetorical device that\Nfits with the drilling and is building up
Dialogue: 0,0:06:01.32,0:06:05.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people's opposition to what Redford wants\Nthem to be opposed to. But it does
Dialogue: 0,0:06:05.82,0:06:10.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,actually give an argument it's just\Nstating it in a flower or a metaphorical
Dialogue: 0,0:06:10.80,0:06:17.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,way, it will get their feelings going,\Nokay? You may wonder. Notice he doesn't
Dialogue: 0,0:06:17.24,0:06:23.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say, you do wonder. He says you may\Nwonder. So this is, tell me, a guarding
Dialogue: 0,0:06:23.98,0:06:29.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,term. So you should mark it with G. And\Nyou may wonder, as I do, as is sometimes
Dialogue: 0,0:06:29.52,0:06:35.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,used as an argument marker, but here\Nyou're not saying that you wonder because
Dialogue: 0,0:06:35.12,0:06:41.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I do or I wonder because you do. The word\Nbecause can't be substituted for as, so to
Dialogue: 0,0:06:41.08,0:06:46.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say as I do is simply to conjoin the two\Nand say you wonder, and I also wonder or
Dialogue: 0,0:06:46.90,0:06:52.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you may wonder cuz I don't know whether\Nyou are or not, and I do. And what we
Dialogue: 0,0:06:52.36,0:06:58.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,wonder is how can this happen? Now we have\Na rhetorical question. How can this
Dialogue: 0,0:06:58.14,0:07:02.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happen? Well that's obviously suggesting.\NIt shouldn't a happened, you know, how
Dialogue: 0,0:07:02.73,0:07:07.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,could something have gone so wrong, as it\Ndid in this case? But he didn't actually
Dialogue: 0,0:07:07.48,0:07:12.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say that. He simply asked the rhetorical\Nquestions. An that's really the trick of
Dialogue: 0,0:07:12.18,0:07:16.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rhetorical questions. Notice there're a\Nbunch of them here. Wasn't the whole
Dialogue: 0,0:07:16.52,0:07:21.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,purpose this? Didn't the President say he\Nwas doing this? Then these three sentences
Dialogue: 0,0:07:21.40,0:07:26.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in a row are all rhetorical questions. So\Nwhat's the trick of rhetorical questions?
Dialogue: 0,0:07:26.21,0:07:31.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The point of a rhetorical question is to\Nget you to give the answer. If I say, how
Dialogue: 0,0:07:31.43,0:07:36.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can this happen and someone thinks to\Nthemselves well the government messes up
Dialogue: 0,0:07:36.75,0:07:41.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,all the time. Then you've got that\Naudience member who answered the question
Dialogue: 0,0:07:41.34,0:07:46.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to be saying it themselves and there's\Nnothing more forceful in an argument than
Dialogue: 0,0:07:46.22,0:07:51.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to get your audience to say it themselves\Nwhen you don't have to say it. And, that's
Dialogue: 0,0:07:51.23,0:07:55.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the trick of a rhetorical question and\Nwhat Redford is doing here is putting
Dialogue: 0,0:07:55.88,0:08:00.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,three of them right in a row so that\Nyou'll have to go along with him three
Dialogue: 0,0:08:00.47,0:08:05.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,times in a row. And then that obviously\Nhas an effect on your feeling like you're
Dialogue: 0,0:08:05.53,0:08:10.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with him. On you feeling like you agree\Nwith him. That's the effect he's trying to
Dialogue: 0,0:08:10.58,0:08:16.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,create by using these rhetorical\Nquestions. Okay, what's the whole purpose
Dialogue: 0,0:08:16.08,0:08:22.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of creating? Notice the whole purpose is\Nto preserve. That phrase, the whole
Dialogue: 0,0:08:22.76,0:08:29.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,purpose, goes with it. Cause we say the\Npurpose is, to preserve. And there. As
Dialogue: 0,0:08:29.46,0:08:35.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,before, in the previous paragraph, we're\Nsignaling an explanation cuz if you want
Dialogue: 0,0:08:35.62,0:08:41.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to explain why Clinton created the\Nmonument, then the answer was, to preserve
Dialogue: 0,0:08:41.46,0:08:47.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the colorful cliffs and sweeping arches\Nand so on. So this is going to be an
Dialogue: 0,0:08:47.08,0:08:53.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,explanation and to say that's the purpose\Nis to say that you created it because you
Dialogue: 0,0:08:53.54,0:08:59.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,wanted to preserve or in order to\Npreserve. Then this whole purpose. Marks
Dialogue: 0,0:08:59.13,0:09:04.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the conclusion, and the, to preserve,\Nmarks the premise. And we have a little
Dialogue: 0,0:09:04.49,0:09:09.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument. He wanted to preserve his\Ncolorful cliffs, therefore, he created the
Dialogue: 0,0:09:09.98,0:09:15.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,monument. And we've got the conclusion\Nmarked by the whole purpose, and the
Dialogue: 0,0:09:15.34,0:09:21.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premise or the reason, marked by the word\Nto. Okay. Preserve. We've already seen a
Dialogue: 0,0:09:21.25,0:09:27.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,word a lot like that namely protect. And\Nwe saw that when you protect something it
Dialogue: 0,0:09:27.65,0:09:33.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,has to be good. Preserve also means to\Npreserve it against things that would harm
Dialogue: 0,0:09:33.97,0:09:40.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it. If harm is bad, then preserving and\Nprotecting against harm must be good, so
Dialogue: 0,0:09:40.05,0:09:45.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we can make that as E plus. Its colorful\Ncliffs. Colorful sounds good, but of
Dialogue: 0,0:09:45.31,0:09:50.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,course colorful just means it's colorful.\NSweeping arches, broad and sweeping and
Dialogue: 0,0:09:50.56,0:09:55.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,curves, well that sounds good, that's\Nsounds beautiful the way he describes it.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:55.62,0:10:02.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And it surely is, as you can see in any\Npicture. But, sweeping doesn't itself say
Dialogue: 0,0:10:02.39,0:10:07.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's good or beautiful or so on. Another\Nextraordinary we already saw
Dialogue: 0,0:10:07.51,0:10:12.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,extraordinary. So colorful, sweeping, and\Nextraordinary. They're certainly being
Dialogue: 0,0:10:12.87,0:10:18.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,used here by Redford to suggest that these\Nare good. But they're not openly saying
Dialogue: 0,0:10:18.39,0:10:23.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they're good. So we don't want to mark\Nthose as evaluative words. But resources.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:23.50,0:10:28.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, resources are things that can give\Nyou abilities. And when you have more
Dialogue: 0,0:10:28.62,0:10:33.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,resources, you're able to do more. So,\Nabilities sounds like a good thing. And
Dialogue: 0,0:10:33.66,0:10:39.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,resources are the things that make you\Nmore able. That give you more freedom and
Dialogue: 0,0:10:39.05,0:10:43.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,more power. So. At-least many people want\Nto mark that as a D+ work. Some of these
Dialogue: 0,0:10:43.69,0:10:48.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are going to be questionable. They are not\Nobvious as others, so I am suggesting one
Dialogue: 0,0:10:48.40,0:10:53.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,way of interpreting this passage, and I\Nhope you are following the law. But if you
Dialogue: 0,0:10:53.16,0:10:57.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have some questions about the particular\Ncases, that's going to be natural. It's
Dialogue: 0,0:10:57.63,0:11:02.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,partly coz our language is not totally\Nprecised. Okay. Large scale mineral
Dialogue: 0,0:11:02.18,0:11:07.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,development. Well, that's not bad if it's\Ndone in the right places. So I don't think
Dialogue: 0,0:11:07.88,0:11:13.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's evaluative either. Didn't the\NPresident say that he was saving these
Dialogue: 0,0:11:13.08,0:11:18.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lands? Well didn't the President say that\Nhe was saving these lands? Well that
Dialogue: 0,0:11:18.43,0:11:23.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,suggests that he's assuring you that in\Nfact he was saving these lands. He should
Dialogue: 0,0:11:23.100,0:11:28.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know, whether that's what he was doing\Nsince, after all, that's what he, you know
Dialogue: 0,0:11:28.98,0:11:34.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,did himself. So he should be able to say,\Nwhat he did and why. Didn't the President
Dialogue: 0,0:11:34.16,0:11:39.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say he was saving? Saving could be marked\Nas E plus, just like protect and preserve?
Dialogue: 0,0:11:40.70,0:11:46.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Cuz it saves it from something bad\Nhappening. These lands from mining
Dialogue: 0,0:11:46.72,0:11:52.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,companies for our children and\Ngrandchildren. Now, what about the word
Dialogue: 0,0:11:52.47,0:11:58.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for? This explains again why he is saving\Nthese lands. He's saving them for
Dialogue: 0,0:11:58.10,0:12:04.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,grandchildren and children. That means the\Nreason for saving these lands is to
Dialogue: 0,0:12:04.04,0:12:09.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,benefit our grandchildren and children.\NSo, for is going to be a reason or premise
Dialogue: 0,0:12:09.98,0:12:15.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,marker. It marks the reason or premise\Nthat justifies saving the lands and
Dialogue: 0,0:12:15.61,0:12:21.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,explains why in fact the president did\Nwant to save the lands. Okay? So now we're
Dialogue: 0,0:12:21.75,0:12:28.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,through with paragraph two. And I hope\Nyou're kind of getting the feel for how to
Dialogue: 0,0:12:28.16,0:12:34.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,do close analysis. And so, what I want to\Ndo now is give you a chance to practice
Dialogue: 0,0:12:34.48,0:12:41.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the skill on your own. We'll put up\Nparagraph three, mark certain words. And
Dialogue: 0,0:12:41.03,0:12:48.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,your task in the exercise, will be to put\Nthe right letter next to, or to indicate
Dialogue: 0,0:12:48.51,0:12:55.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the function of that word in the\Nparagraph. And the letter you put should
Dialogue: 0,0:12:55.26,0:13:01.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be either R or P for premise marker, C for\Nconclusion marker, A for assuring, G for
Dialogue: 0,0:13:01.34,0:13:07.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,guarding, D for discounting, E+, E- for\Npositive and negative evaluation. And you
Dialogue: 0,0:13:07.60,0:13:11.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can go through the third paragraph\Nyourself in the exercise.