On to the second paragraph. The first sentence is really simple, not so. Of
course. it's referring back to the last sentence of the first paragraph. We said,
now we thought at least some of it was safe. And saying, no, it wasn't safe. So,
what are we going to say about this sentence? Well, what about the little
word, so? So, can be an argument marker. It can indicate that what follows it, is a
conclusion. But, is that what it's doing here? I don't think so. As we just saw
like in, I don't think so, the word, so, can be used in many ways, where it's not
an argument marker. And this is saying, it's not so. It's not that way. So there's
no argument here. So that would get marked with a big N for nothing. Now, what about
shocking, as it sounds, shocking? Well, is shocking always bad? Remember we saw in
the first paragraph the word stunning. Well, stunning stuns you, and shocking
shocks you. And it's telling you that you have some kind of reaction. But it's not
telling you whether that reaction is due to the thing being good, or the thing
being bad. You can get shocked by something good or bad. It can be
shockingly good, or shockingly bad. And so the word shocking by itself. Doesn't
indicate that it's e plus or e minus, so again, you get a nothing. I mention it
only because it's clear that Robert Redford thinks that shocking is bad, that
this should not have happened. He's suggesting that it's bad. But the word
shocking, itself, is not an evaluative word. What about, as it sounds? Well, he's
saying that it sounds that way. He's not saying that it is that way. He's not
saying that it may sound that way. He's saying it does sound that way, which is to
say, it seems that way to him. Which is not to say it really is true, so he's
guarding the client. He's not saying that it really is shocking. He's saying that it
seems shocking. So he's guarding the client, in order to avoid someone
objecting that it's not really all that shocking, after all. Say, well it sounds
shocking, and in order to make that part of his argument mo re defensible. Because
it's not really essential to his argument, that it's shocking or not. So what's
supposed to be shocking? Clinton's Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, has approved
oil drilling within the monument. Notice that there is no guarding at all here he
just states it. They did it they approved oil drilling within the monument. And,
that's because it's not really something he is arguing for. He's actually opposed
to it. It's something that his opponents might support but he doesn't so, he
doesn't want to guard it since he wants to say it just happened as a matter of fact
that they approved it so, there's I nothing that we need to mark in that
particular sentence. Next sentence. BLM or the Bureau of Land Management has given
Conoco Incorporated, a subsidiary of the corporate giant DuPont permission to drill
for oil and gas in the heart of the new monument. Well, there's a lot going on
here that we could mention, no, BLM has given Conoco a subsidiary that explains
how they got permission by siding the BLM. It's a subsidiary of the corporate giant
DuPont. He's certainly suggesting that giant suggested that he's the small guy,
you know, up against the big corporate giant. It might even has some connotation
of corporate giants being bad, but it doesn't actually say that. And so, again
giant should be marked as nothing. What about permission? To say that someone's
permitted to do something, is to say that it's not wrong. That's what permitted
means. Now of course, if you're talking about a legal permission, then to say that
it's permitted is to say that it's not legally wrong. It's not forbidden by law.
It still might be morally wrong but at least it's legally permitted means it's
not legally forbidden. And so if forbidden and wrong are evaluative words, to deny
them and say it's not wrong looks like an evaluative as well. But one of the
interesting things about this evaluative word is it's clear whether it's positive
or negative. It means it's not wrong, but that doesn't mean it is good or is right.
It simply means it's not forbidden. So, it's not clear whether to put plus or
minus. I'll just leave it as a plain E in that case, okay? Now, what did they have
permission to do to drill for oil and gas in the heart of the new monument, okay?
That's what the permission was a permission to do. The word to there is not
being used as an argument marker in this case because you can't say they get
permission in order to, right? What they gave them permission to do was to drill,
okay? What about drill? Well clearly Robert Redford doesn't want them to drill.
So he thinks that's bad. But he doesn't say it's bad. He just calls it drilling.
And they're drilling for oil and gas. Well a lot of people think that oil and gas are
good things. But they don't say here that they're good. They're simply saying that
they're oil and gas. The coolest part of this cuz I think, is that metaphor at the
end. I mean you have this image that there is this poor monument and somebody is
drilling right in its heart you know like, what could be crueler than to drill in the
heart of a young monument the poor innocent thing. So, this metaphor of the
heart is a nice rhetorical device that fits with the drilling and is building up
people's opposition to what Redford wants them to be opposed to. But it does
actually give an argument it's just stating it in a flower or a metaphorical
way, it will get their feelings going, okay? You may wonder. Notice he doesn't
say, you do wonder. He says you may wonder. So this is, tell me, a guarding
term. So you should mark it with G. And you may wonder, as I do, as is sometimes
used as an argument marker, but here you're not saying that you wonder because
I do or I wonder because you do. The word because can't be substituted for as, so to
say as I do is simply to conjoin the two and say you wonder, and I also wonder or
you may wonder cuz I don't know whether you are or not, and I do. And what we
wonder is how can this happen? Now we have a rhetorical question. How can this
happen? Well that's obviously suggesting. It shouldn't a happened, you know, how
could something have gone so wrong, as it did in this case? But he didn't actually
say that. He simply asked the rhetorical questions. An that's really the trick of
rhetorical questions. Notice there're a bunch of them here. Wasn't the whole
purpose this? Didn't the President say he was doing this? Then these three sentences
in a row are all rhetorical questions. So what's the trick of rhetorical questions?
The point of a rhetorical question is to get you to give the answer. If I say, how
can this happen and someone thinks to themselves well the government messes up
all the time. Then you've got that audience member who answered the question
to be saying it themselves and there's nothing more forceful in an argument than
to get your audience to say it themselves when you don't have to say it. And, that's
the trick of a rhetorical question and what Redford is doing here is putting
three of them right in a row so that you'll have to go along with him three
times in a row. And then that obviously has an effect on your feeling like you're
with him. On you feeling like you agree with him. That's the effect he's trying to
create by using these rhetorical questions. Okay, what's the whole purpose
of creating? Notice the whole purpose is to preserve. That phrase, the whole
purpose, goes with it. Cause we say the purpose is, to preserve. And there. As
before, in the previous paragraph, we're signaling an explanation cuz if you want
to explain why Clinton created the monument, then the answer was, to preserve
the colorful cliffs and sweeping arches and so on. So this is going to be an
explanation and to say that's the purpose is to say that you created it because you
wanted to preserve or in order to preserve. Then this whole purpose. Marks
the conclusion, and the, to preserve, marks the premise. And we have a little
argument. He wanted to preserve his colorful cliffs, therefore, he created the
monument. And we've got the conclusion marked by the whole purpose, and the
premise or the reason, marked by the word to. Okay. Preserve. We've already seen a
word a lot like that namely protect. And we saw that when you protect something it
has to be good. Preserve also means to preserve it against things that would harm
it. If harm is bad, then preserving and protecting against harm must be good, so
we can make that as E plus. Its colorful cliffs. Colorful sounds good, but of
course colorful just means it's colorful. Sweeping arches, broad and sweeping and
curves, well that sounds good, that's sounds beautiful the way he describes it.
And it surely is, as you can see in any picture. But, sweeping doesn't itself say
it's good or beautiful or so on. Another extraordinary we already saw
extraordinary. So colorful, sweeping, and extraordinary. They're certainly being
used here by Redford to suggest that these are good. But they're not openly saying
they're good. So we don't want to mark those as evaluative words. But resources.
Now, resources are things that can give you abilities. And when you have more
resources, you're able to do more. So, abilities sounds like a good thing. And
resources are the things that make you more able. That give you more freedom and
more power. So. At-least many people want to mark that as a D+ work. Some of these
are going to be questionable. They are not obvious as others, so I am suggesting one
way of interpreting this passage, and I hope you are following the law. But if you
have some questions about the particular cases, that's going to be natural. It's
partly coz our language is not totally precised. Okay. Large scale mineral
development. Well, that's not bad if it's done in the right places. So I don't think
that's evaluative either. Didn't the President say that he was saving these
lands? Well didn't the President say that he was saving these lands? Well that
suggests that he's assuring you that in fact he was saving these lands. He should
know, whether that's what he was doing since, after all, that's what he, you know
did himself. So he should be able to say, what he did and why. Didn't the President
say he was saving? Saving could be marked as E plus, just like protect and preserve?
Cuz it saves it from something bad happening. These lands from mining
companies for our children and grandchildren. Now, what about the word
for? This explains again why he is saving these lands. He's saving them for
grandchildren and children. That means the reason for saving these lands is to
benefit our grandchildren and children. So, for is going to be a reason or premise
marker. It marks the reason or premise that justifies saving the lands and
explains why in fact the president did want to save the lands. Okay? So now we're
through with paragraph two. And I hope you're kind of getting the feel for how to
do close analysis. And so, what I want to do now is give you a chance to practice
the skill on your own. We'll put up paragraph three, mark certain words. And
your task in the exercise, will be to put the right letter next to, or to indicate
the function of that word in the paragraph. And the letter you put should
be either R or P for premise marker, C for conclusion marker, A for assuring, G for
guarding, D for discounting, E+, E- for positive and negative evaluation. And you
can go through the third paragraph yourself in the exercise.