WEBVTT 00:00:02.620 --> 00:00:09.399 On to the second paragraph. The first sentence is really simple, not so. Of 00:00:08.783 --> 00:00:15.738 course. it's referring back to the last sentence of the first paragraph. We said, 00:00:15.738 --> 00:00:22.430 now we thought at least some of it was safe. And saying, no, it wasn't safe. So, 00:00:22.430 --> 00:00:28.505 what are we going to say about this sentence? Well, what about the little 00:00:28.505 --> 00:00:33.901 word, so? So, can be an argument marker. It can indicate that what follows it, is a 00:00:33.901 --> 00:00:38.923 conclusion. But, is that what it's doing here? I don't think so. As we just saw 00:00:38.923 --> 00:00:44.012 like in, I don't think so, the word, so, can be used in many ways, where it's not 00:00:44.012 --> 00:00:49.232 an argument marker. And this is saying, it's not so. It's not that way. So there's 00:00:49.232 --> 00:00:56.084 no argument here. So that would get marked with a big N for nothing. Now, what about 00:00:56.084 --> 00:01:05.746 shocking, as it sounds, shocking? Well, is shocking always bad? Remember we saw in 00:01:05.746 --> 00:01:10.535 the first paragraph the word stunning. Well, stunning stuns you, and shocking 00:01:10.535 --> 00:01:15.296 shocks you. And it's telling you that you have some kind of reaction. But it's not 00:01:15.296 --> 00:01:19.882 telling you whether that reaction is due to the thing being good, or the thing 00:01:19.882 --> 00:01:23.703 being bad. You can get shocked by something good or bad. It can be 00:01:23.703 --> 00:01:28.367 shockingly good, or shockingly bad. And so the word shocking by itself. Doesn't 00:01:28.367 --> 00:01:34.213 indicate that it's e plus or e minus, so again, you get a nothing. I mention it 00:01:34.213 --> 00:01:40.059 only because it's clear that Robert Redford thinks that shocking is bad, that 00:01:40.059 --> 00:01:45.601 this should not have happened. He's suggesting that it's bad. But the word 00:01:45.601 --> 00:01:55.689 shocking, itself, is not an evaluative word. What about, as it sounds? Well, he's 00:01:55.689 --> 00:02:00.541 saying that it sounds that way. He's not saying that it is that way. He's not 00:02:00.541 --> 00:02:05.798 saying that it may sound that way. He's saying it does sound that way, which is to 00:02:05.798 --> 00:02:10.787 say, it seems that way to him. Which is not to say it really is true, so he's 00:02:10.787 --> 00:02:16.309 guarding the client. He's not saying that it really is shocking. He's saying that it 00:02:16.309 --> 00:02:20.899 seems shocking. So he's guarding the client, in order to avoid someone 00:02:20.899 --> 00:02:26.087 objecting that it's not really all that shocking, after all. Say, well it sounds 00:02:26.087 --> 00:02:31.276 shocking, and in order to make that part of his argument mo re defensible. Because 00:02:31.276 --> 00:02:36.554 it's not really essential to his argument, that it's shocking or not. So what's 00:02:36.554 --> 00:02:42.590 supposed to be shocking? Clinton's Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, has approved 00:02:42.590 --> 00:02:48.543 oil drilling within the monument. Notice that there is no guarding at all here he 00:02:48.543 --> 00:02:53.748 just states it. They did it they approved oil drilling within the monument. And, 00:02:53.748 --> 00:02:59.154 that's because it's not really something he is arguing for. He's actually opposed 00:02:59.154 --> 00:03:04.159 to it. It's something that his opponents might support but he doesn't so, he 00:03:04.159 --> 00:03:09.765 doesn't want to guard it since he wants to say it just happened as a matter of fact 00:03:09.765 --> 00:03:14.570 that they approved it so, there's I nothing that we need to mark in that 00:03:14.570 --> 00:03:20.201 particular sentence. Next sentence. BLM or the Bureau of Land Management has given 00:03:20.201 --> 00:03:25.218 Conoco Incorporated, a subsidiary of the corporate giant DuPont permission to drill 00:03:25.218 --> 00:03:30.985 for oil and gas in the heart of the new monument. Well, there's a lot going on 00:03:30.985 --> 00:03:37.296 here that we could mention, no, BLM has given Conoco a subsidiary that explains 00:03:37.296 --> 00:03:44.012 how they got permission by siding the BLM. It's a subsidiary of the corporate giant 00:03:44.012 --> 00:03:50.323 DuPont. He's certainly suggesting that giant suggested that he's the small guy, 00:03:50.323 --> 00:03:56.716 you know, up against the big corporate giant. It might even has some connotation 00:03:56.716 --> 00:04:03.100 of corporate giants being bad, but it doesn't actually say that. And so, again 00:04:03.100 --> 00:04:11.551 giant should be marked as nothing. What about permission? To say that someone's 00:04:11.551 --> 00:04:16.415 permitted to do something, is to say that it's not wrong. That's what permitted 00:04:16.415 --> 00:04:21.403 means. Now of course, if you're talking about a legal permission, then to say that 00:04:21.403 --> 00:04:26.330 it's permitted is to say that it's not legally wrong. It's not forbidden by law. 00:04:26.330 --> 00:04:30.895 It still might be morally wrong but at least it's legally permitted means it's 00:04:30.895 --> 00:04:35.576 not legally forbidden. And so if forbidden and wrong are evaluative words, to deny 00:04:35.576 --> 00:04:39.967 them and say it's not wrong looks like an evaluative as well. But one of the 00:04:39.967 --> 00:04:44.706 interesting things about this evaluative word is it's clear whether it's positive 00:04:44.706 --> 00:04:49.853 or negative. It means it's not wrong, but that doesn't mean it is good or is right. 00:04:49.853 --> 00:04:54.758 It simply means it's not forbidden. So, it's not clear whether to put plus or 00:04:54.758 --> 00:05:01.638 minus. I'll just leave it as a plain E in that case, okay? Now, what did they have 00:05:01.638 --> 00:05:06.517 permission to do to drill for oil and gas in the heart of the new monument, okay? 00:05:06.517 --> 00:05:11.092 That's what the permission was a permission to do. The word to there is not 00:05:11.092 --> 00:05:15.788 being used as an argument marker in this case because you can't say they get 00:05:15.788 --> 00:05:20.545 permission in order to, right? What they gave them permission to do was to drill, 00:05:20.545 --> 00:05:24.862 okay? What about drill? Well clearly Robert Redford doesn't want them to drill. 00:05:24.862 --> 00:05:28.915 So he thinks that's bad. But he doesn't say it's bad. He just calls it drilling. 00:05:28.915 --> 00:05:33.331 And they're drilling for oil and gas. Well a lot of people think that oil and gas are 00:05:33.331 --> 00:05:37.540 good things. But they don't say here that they're good. They're simply saying that 00:05:37.540 --> 00:05:42.369 they're oil and gas. The coolest part of this cuz I think, is that metaphor at the 00:05:42.369 --> 00:05:47.106 end. I mean you have this image that there is this poor monument and somebody is 00:05:47.106 --> 00:05:52.139 drilling right in its heart you know like, what could be crueler than to drill in the 00:05:52.139 --> 00:05:56.520 heart of a young monument the poor innocent thing. So, this metaphor of the 00:05:56.520 --> 00:06:01.316 heart is a nice rhetorical device that fits with the drilling and is building up 00:06:01.316 --> 00:06:05.816 people's opposition to what Redford wants them to be opposed to. But it does 00:06:05.816 --> 00:06:10.801 actually give an argument it's just stating it in a flower or a metaphorical 00:06:10.801 --> 00:06:17.240 way, it will get their feelings going, okay? You may wonder. Notice he doesn't 00:06:17.240 --> 00:06:23.984 say, you do wonder. He says you may wonder. So this is, tell me, a guarding 00:06:23.984 --> 00:06:29.516 term. So you should mark it with G. And you may wonder, as I do, as is sometimes 00:06:29.516 --> 00:06:35.120 used as an argument marker, but here you're not saying that you wonder because 00:06:35.120 --> 00:06:41.082 I do or I wonder because you do. The word because can't be substituted for as, so to 00:06:41.082 --> 00:06:46.901 say as I do is simply to conjoin the two and say you wonder, and I also wonder or 00:06:46.901 --> 00:06:52.361 you may wonder cuz I don't know whether you are or not, and I do. And what we 00:06:52.361 --> 00:06:58.137 wonder is how can this happen? Now we have a rhetorical question. How can this 00:06:58.137 --> 00:07:02.728 happen? Well that's obviously suggesting. It shouldn't a happened, you know, how 00:07:02.728 --> 00:07:07.483 could something have gone so wrong, as it did in this case? But he didn't actually 00:07:07.483 --> 00:07:12.179 say that. He simply asked the rhetorical questions. An that's really the trick of 00:07:12.179 --> 00:07:16.523 rhetorical questions. Notice there're a bunch of them here. Wasn't the whole 00:07:16.523 --> 00:07:21.395 purpose this? Didn't the President say he was doing this? Then these three sentences 00:07:21.395 --> 00:07:26.208 in a row are all rhetorical questions. So what's the trick of rhetorical questions? 00:07:26.208 --> 00:07:31.432 The point of a rhetorical question is to get you to give the answer. If I say, how 00:07:31.432 --> 00:07:36.751 can this happen and someone thinks to themselves well the government messes up 00:07:36.751 --> 00:07:41.336 all the time. Then you've got that audience member who answered the question 00:07:41.336 --> 00:07:46.223 to be saying it themselves and there's nothing more forceful in an argument than 00:07:46.223 --> 00:07:51.231 to get your audience to say it themselves when you don't have to say it. And, that's 00:07:51.231 --> 00:07:55.876 the trick of a rhetorical question and what Redford is doing here is putting 00:07:55.876 --> 00:08:00.474 three of them right in a row so that you'll have to go along with him three 00:08:00.474 --> 00:08:05.528 times in a row. And then that obviously has an effect on your feeling like you're 00:08:05.528 --> 00:08:10.582 with him. On you feeling like you agree with him. That's the effect he's trying to 00:08:10.582 --> 00:08:16.076 create by using these rhetorical questions. Okay, what's the whole purpose 00:08:16.076 --> 00:08:22.761 of creating? Notice the whole purpose is to preserve. That phrase, the whole 00:08:22.761 --> 00:08:29.460 purpose, goes with it. Cause we say the purpose is, to preserve. And there. As 00:08:29.460 --> 00:08:35.616 before, in the previous paragraph, we're signaling an explanation cuz if you want 00:08:35.616 --> 00:08:41.464 to explain why Clinton created the monument, then the answer was, to preserve 00:08:41.464 --> 00:08:47.081 the colorful cliffs and sweeping arches and so on. So this is going to be an 00:08:47.081 --> 00:08:53.544 explanation and to say that's the purpose is to say that you created it because you 00:08:53.544 --> 00:08:59.134 wanted to preserve or in order to preserve. Then this whole purpose. Marks 00:08:59.134 --> 00:09:04.486 the conclusion, and the, to preserve, marks the premise. And we have a little 00:09:04.486 --> 00:09:09.984 argument. He wanted to preserve his colorful cliffs, therefore, he created the 00:09:09.984 --> 00:09:15.337 monument. And we've got the conclusion marked by the whole purpose, and the 00:09:15.337 --> 00:09:21.250 premise or the reason, marked by the word to. Okay. Preserve. We've already seen a 00:09:21.250 --> 00:09:27.648 word a lot like that namely protect. And we saw that when you protect something it 00:09:27.648 --> 00:09:33.967 has to be good. Preserve also means to preserve it against things that would harm 00:09:33.967 --> 00:09:40.053 it. If harm is bad, then preserving and protecting against harm must be good, so 00:09:40.053 --> 00:09:45.310 we can make that as E plus. Its colorful cliffs. Colorful sounds good, but of 00:09:45.310 --> 00:09:50.561 course colorful just means it's colorful. Sweeping arches, broad and sweeping and 00:09:50.561 --> 00:09:55.615 curves, well that sounds good, that's sounds beautiful the way he describes it. 00:09:55.615 --> 00:10:02.393 And it surely is, as you can see in any picture. But, sweeping doesn't itself say 00:10:02.393 --> 00:10:07.511 it's good or beautiful or so on. Another extraordinary we already saw 00:10:07.511 --> 00:10:12.871 extraordinary. So colorful, sweeping, and extraordinary. They're certainly being 00:10:12.871 --> 00:10:18.389 used here by Redford to suggest that these are good. But they're not openly saying 00:10:18.389 --> 00:10:23.503 they're good. So we don't want to mark those as evaluative words. But resources. 00:10:23.503 --> 00:10:28.617 Now, resources are things that can give you abilities. And when you have more 00:10:28.617 --> 00:10:33.664 resources, you're able to do more. So, abilities sounds like a good thing. And 00:10:33.664 --> 00:10:39.047 resources are the things that make you more able. That give you more freedom and 00:10:39.047 --> 00:10:43.693 more power. So. At-least many people want to mark that as a D+ work. Some of these 00:10:43.693 --> 00:10:48.397 are going to be questionable. They are not obvious as others, so I am suggesting one 00:10:48.397 --> 00:10:53.159 way of interpreting this passage, and I hope you are following the law. But if you 00:10:53.159 --> 00:10:57.627 have some questions about the particular cases, that's going to be natural. It's 00:10:57.627 --> 00:11:02.185 partly coz our language is not totally precised. Okay. Large scale mineral 00:11:02.185 --> 00:11:07.878 development. Well, that's not bad if it's done in the right places. So I don't think 00:11:07.878 --> 00:11:13.085 that's evaluative either. Didn't the President say that he was saving these 00:11:13.085 --> 00:11:18.430 lands? Well didn't the President say that he was saving these lands? Well that 00:11:18.430 --> 00:11:23.999 suggests that he's assuring you that in fact he was saving these lands. He should 00:11:23.999 --> 00:11:28.983 know, whether that's what he was doing since, after all, that's what he, you know 00:11:28.983 --> 00:11:34.159 did himself. So he should be able to say, what he did and why. Didn't the President 00:11:34.159 --> 00:11:39.400 say he was saving? Saving could be marked as E plus, just like protect and preserve? 00:11:40.700 --> 00:11:46.716 Cuz it saves it from something bad happening. These lands from mining 00:11:46.716 --> 00:11:52.467 companies for our children and grandchildren. Now, what about the word 00:11:52.467 --> 00:11:58.100 for? This explains again why he is saving these lands. He's saving them for 00:11:58.100 --> 00:12:04.038 grandchildren and children. That means the reason for saving these lands is to 00:12:04.038 --> 00:12:09.976 benefit our grandchildren and children. So, for is going to be a reason or premise 00:12:09.976 --> 00:12:15.610 marker. It marks the reason or premise that justifies saving the lands and 00:12:15.610 --> 00:12:21.752 explains why in fact the president did want to save the lands. Okay? So now we're 00:12:21.752 --> 00:12:28.156 through with paragraph two. And I hope you're kind of getting the feel for how to 00:12:28.156 --> 00:12:34.480 do close analysis. And so, what I want to do now is give you a chance to practice 00:12:34.480 --> 00:12:41.026 the skill on your own. We'll put up paragraph three, mark certain words. And 00:12:41.026 --> 00:12:48.513 your task in the exercise, will be to put the right letter next to, or to indicate 00:12:48.513 --> 00:12:55.260 the function of that word in the paragraph. And the letter you put should 00:12:55.260 --> 00:13:01.337 be either R or P for premise marker, C for conclusion marker, A for assuring, G for 00:13:01.337 --> 00:13:07.600 guarding, D for discounting, E+, E- for positive and negative evaluation. And you 00:13:07.600 --> 00:13:11.920 can go through the third paragraph yourself in the exercise.