1 00:00:02,320 --> 00:00:06,884 So far, we've looked at the language of argument in some detail. 2 00:00:06,884 --> 00:00:11,750 because we've separated the reason markers from conclusion markers. 3 00:00:11,750 --> 00:00:16,856 And we've talked about assuring and guarding and discounting and evaluative 4 00:00:16,856 --> 00:00:19,879 words. So we've picked out a lot of different 5 00:00:19,879 --> 00:00:23,641 words in language that play distinct roles in arguments. 6 00:00:23,641 --> 00:00:28,680 But what we need to do for a real argument is to bring it all together and 7 00:00:28,680 --> 00:00:33,248 show how these types of words can work together in a single passage. 8 00:00:33,248 --> 00:00:37,750 And to do that, we're going to learn a method called close analysis. 9 00:00:37,750 --> 00:00:44,667 And what you do with close analysis is you simply take a passage and you mark 10 00:00:44,667 --> 00:00:48,924 the words in that passage that play those roles. 11 00:00:48,924 --> 00:00:56,463 so a reason maker you can mark an R and a conclusion marker you can mark with a C, 12 00:00:56,463 --> 00:01:02,583 assuring term you mark with an A a guarding term you mark with G, a 13 00:01:02,583 --> 00:01:07,888 discounting term you mark with D, an evaluative term you mark with E. 14 00:01:07,888 --> 00:01:13,189 And if it's clear, you put a plus or a minus to indicate whether it's positive 15 00:01:13,189 --> 00:01:18,252 evaluation or negative evaluation. Now, these marks will just be scratching 16 00:01:18,252 --> 00:01:21,968 the surface. There's obviously a lot more that you can 17 00:01:21,968 --> 00:01:26,028 do, and need to do, in order to fully understand the passage. 18 00:01:26,028 --> 00:01:31,120 So, when it's a discounting term, you ought to think about which objection is 19 00:01:31,120 --> 00:01:35,005 being discounted. And you also ought to think about the 20 00:01:35,005 --> 00:01:38,097 rhetorical moves, the metaphors and irony. 21 00:01:38,097 --> 00:01:43,376 We'll look at rhetorical questions. And we'll basically go through the 22 00:01:43,376 --> 00:01:49,259 passage very carefully word by word in order to figure out what's going on in 23 00:01:49,259 --> 00:01:52,384 that passage. So, how do you learn the technique? 24 00:01:52,384 --> 00:01:56,232 The answer is very simple. You practice, and then you practice 25 00:01:56,232 --> 00:01:59,071 again. And then you practice, and practice, and 26 00:01:59,071 --> 00:02:02,730 practice and practice. Practice won't make perfect, because 27 00:02:02,730 --> 00:02:06,388 nothing's perfect. But practice will surely help a lot, and 28 00:02:06,388 --> 00:02:09,480 we'll get better and better the more we practice. 29 00:02:09,480 --> 00:02:14,798 So in this lecture, what we're going to do is go through one example in a lot of 30 00:02:14,798 --> 00:02:20,185 detail and mark it up very carefully in order to practice the method of close 31 00:02:20,185 --> 00:02:23,639 analysis. The particular example we chose for this 32 00:02:23,639 --> 00:02:28,542 lecture is by Robert Redford. It's an opiad that was written for the 33 00:02:28,542 --> 00:02:32,410 Washington Post. We chose it because it's an interesting 34 00:02:32,410 --> 00:02:34,690 issue. It's about the environment. 35 00:02:34,690 --> 00:02:39,028 But it's not an issue that people will necessarily have very strong emotions 36 00:02:39,028 --> 00:02:41,395 about. Because you might not even know the 37 00:02:41,395 --> 00:02:44,720 particular part of the environment that he's talking about. 38 00:02:44,720 --> 00:02:48,165 We also choose it because it's a really good argument. 39 00:02:48,165 --> 00:02:53,143 You learn how to analyze arguments, and how to formulate your own arguments by 40 00:02:53,143 --> 00:02:57,035 looking at good examples. Of course it's fun to tear down bad 41 00:02:57,035 --> 00:03:01,885 examples, but we need a nice model of a good argument in order to see what's 42 00:03:01,885 --> 00:03:06,671 lacking in the arguments that are bad. So we're going to go through an example 43 00:03:06,671 --> 00:03:09,990 partly because it's actually a pretty good argument. 44 00:03:09,990 --> 00:03:14,826 We're also going to go through this passage because it's really thick with 45 00:03:14,826 --> 00:03:18,856 these argument words. So, you'll see that we're marking a lot 46 00:03:18,856 --> 00:03:24,163 of different things, and we'll have to go through it paragraph by paragraph, and 47 00:03:24,163 --> 00:03:27,790 sentence by sentence, and word by word, in great detail. 48 00:03:27,790 --> 00:03:32,761 This lecture will seem like it's looking at the passage with a microscope. 49 00:03:32,761 --> 00:03:38,202 and that's the point, to learn to analyze with a microscope, the passages where 50 00:03:38,202 --> 00:03:40,025 people give arguments. Okay. 51 00:03:40,025 --> 00:03:45,271 So the first sentence is, just over a year ago, President Clinton created the 52 00:03:45,271 --> 00:03:50,586 Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument to protect once and for all some 53 00:03:50,586 --> 00:03:53,900 of Utah's extraordinary red rock canyon country. 54 00:03:53,900 --> 00:03:59,123 Word number one, just. Well, justice is a good thing, right? 55 00:03:59,123 --> 00:04:02,037 So that must be an evaluative word. No. 56 00:04:02,037 --> 00:04:07,788 One of the first lessons in close analysis, is that simply because you have 57 00:04:07,788 --> 00:04:12,083 the word just, doesn't mean you're talking about justice. 58 00:04:12,083 --> 00:04:17,527 When he says, just over a year ago, he means slightly over a year ago, or 59 00:04:17,527 --> 00:04:21,591 somewhat over a year ago, or sometime over a year ago. 60 00:04:21,591 --> 00:04:26,192 So maybe he's guarding. You might want to mark this one as a 61 00:04:26,192 --> 00:04:29,490 guarding term by putting a G out there. But. 62 00:04:29,490 --> 00:04:33,285 He's not using an evaluation. To say, just over a year ago. 63 00:04:33,285 --> 00:04:36,881 Well, why would he guard? Because, he's not very precise. 64 00:04:36,881 --> 00:04:40,210 He's not going to say, seventeen days over a year ago. 65 00:04:40,210 --> 00:04:45,404 He's saying, just over a year ago, so that nobody will raise a question at this 66 00:04:45,404 --> 00:04:48,600 point. He does not want people raising questions 67 00:04:48,600 --> 00:04:51,530 this early in the op-ed. So let's keep going. 68 00:04:51,530 --> 00:04:57,288 Just over a year ago, President Clinton created the Grand Staircase-Escalante 69 00:04:57,288 --> 00:05:04,385 National Monument to protect once and for all, some of the extraordinary red rock 70 00:05:04,385 --> 00:05:05,524 country. Okay. 71 00:05:05,524 --> 00:05:11,462 What about the word, to. Might seem like not much because it's 72 00:05:11,462 --> 00:05:15,419 such a short word. But it's actually doing a lot of work 73 00:05:15,419 --> 00:05:20,154 there if you think about it. We actually I think should market as a, 74 00:05:20,154 --> 00:05:24,747 an argument marker of some sort. Is it a reason marker or is it a 75 00:05:24,747 --> 00:05:27,714 conclusion marker? We'll come back to that. 76 00:05:27,714 --> 00:05:32,800 But first let's get clear that it's an argument marker of some sort. 77 00:05:32,800 --> 00:05:38,235 When he says that he created the monument to protect once and for all, he means in 78 00:05:38,235 --> 00:05:43,273 order to protect, because he wanted to protect, once and for all, some of that 79 00:05:43,273 --> 00:05:46,521 country. It's an explanation of why he created it. 80 00:05:46,521 --> 00:05:51,360 It's giving you the teleological explanation, which tells you the purpose 81 00:05:51,360 --> 00:05:53,150 for which he created it. So, 82 00:05:53,150 --> 00:05:59,478 the bit that comes out protect once and for all some of the country, is the 83 00:05:59,478 --> 00:06:04,878 reason why he created it. It explains the conclusion that he did 84 00:06:04,878 --> 00:06:08,000 create it. So this is a reason marker. 85 00:06:09,660 --> 00:06:17,607 Now the next word, protect. Well you might think that protect is a 86 00:06:17,607 --> 00:06:22,436 neutral word because after all, protectionism is criticized by some 87 00:06:22,436 --> 00:06:25,825 people. But actually to protect something is to 88 00:06:25,825 --> 00:06:29,789 keep it safe. To keep it safe from harm to keep it safe 89 00:06:29,789 --> 00:06:34,908 from bad things happening to it. So, to explain what counts a protection 90 00:06:34,908 --> 00:06:40,819 and what doesn't count as protection you have to cite what's good or bad and that 91 00:06:40,819 --> 00:06:45,576 makes it an evaluative word. And, in this case protecting is a good 92 00:06:45,576 --> 00:06:52,603 thing so, it get's marked as E plus. Okay, the next words are once and for 93 00:06:52,603 --> 00:06:55,760 all. What is once and for all do. 94 00:06:55,760 --> 00:06:59,614 Nothing. Some of these words are going to get 95 00:06:59,614 --> 00:07:05,438 marked as nothing whatsoever. Because once and for all doesn't guard. 96 00:07:05,438 --> 00:07:11,092 It says, once and for all, its the absolute limit, but the next word. 97 00:07:11,092 --> 00:07:14,090 Some, what does that do? That guards. 98 00:07:14,090 --> 00:07:19,446 It's saying that what's protected is not all of Utah's red rock country, 99 00:07:19,446 --> 00:07:25,323 it's only some of it and it's important for him to guard that, because he wants 100 00:07:25,323 --> 00:07:30,829 to say later on, as we'll see, that there's lots of it outside the monument 101 00:07:30,829 --> 00:07:36,036 that's not getting protected. So he wants to guard it and say it's not 102 00:07:36,036 --> 00:07:39,682 all that's going to be important to his argument. 103 00:07:39,682 --> 00:07:43,013 Now, Utah's pretty neutral, unless you're from 104 00:07:43,013 --> 00:07:47,856 that state, then you love it, and you might say that's an evaluative word, but 105 00:07:47,856 --> 00:07:50,533 let's skip that group of people right now. 106 00:07:50,533 --> 00:07:53,019 Extraordinary. What about extraordinary? 107 00:07:53,019 --> 00:07:57,034 Is that an evaluative word? Might seem to be an evaluative word, 108 00:07:57,034 --> 00:08:01,304 because clearly, what Redford means is extraordinarily beautiful or 109 00:08:01,304 --> 00:08:06,211 extraordinarily good, red rock country. But the word extraordinary, doesn't say 110 00:08:06,211 --> 00:08:09,480 extraordinarily good. You can have things that are 111 00:08:09,480 --> 00:08:13,540 extraordinarily bad. To say it's extraordinary is to say it's 112 00:08:13,540 --> 00:08:17,135 out of the ordinary. And the red rock country might be 113 00:08:17,135 --> 00:08:21,195 extraordinarily ugly. So the word extraordinary, itself, is not 114 00:08:21,195 --> 00:08:25,388 by itself, an evaluative word, so it should be marked as nothing. 115 00:08:25,388 --> 00:08:28,650 And red rock country, also, is going to be neutral. 116 00:08:28,650 --> 00:08:33,376 It's beautiful stuff, but simply to describe it, as made out of red rock 117 00:08:33,376 --> 00:08:37,835 doesn't say that it's beautiful, even though, we all know that it is. 118 00:08:37,835 --> 00:08:44,585 Just look at the picture. So, now we've finished a whole sentence. 119 00:08:44,585 --> 00:08:47,179 Isn't that great? A whole sentence! 120 00:08:47,179 --> 00:08:51,457 All right! [LAUGH] And all we did was find six 121 00:08:51,457 --> 00:08:56,155 things to mark in that sentence. Well, four were marked and two were 122 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 123 00:09:01,976 --> 00:09:06,884 analysis to figure out what's going on, and we're just getting started. 124 00:09:06,884 --> 00:09:12,701 Now let's move on to the second sentence. So it's in response to plans, of the 125 00:09:12,701 --> 00:09:17,979 Dutch company to mine coal, President Clinton used his authority, to 126 00:09:17,979 --> 00:09:20,770 establish the new monument. And so on. 127 00:09:20,770 --> 00:09:24,640 Let's go to, in response to. What does that tell you? 128 00:09:24,640 --> 00:09:30,484 It tells you, that what's coming after it, explains why President Clinton used 129 00:09:30,484 --> 00:09:34,431 his authority. It was a response to the plans of the 130 00:09:34,431 --> 00:09:38,302 Dutch Company. Which means that, it's an explanation. 131 00:09:38,302 --> 00:09:43,842 Notice that the previous explanation says, why Clinton wanted to do it, in 132 00:09:43,842 --> 00:09:47,115 general. This explanation tells you why President 133 00:09:47,115 --> 00:09:51,537 Clinton did it at that particular time rather than earlier or later. 134 00:09:51,537 --> 00:09:56,414 It's because he was responding to particular plans by a particular company. 135 00:09:56,414 --> 00:09:59,340 So the end response to, is an argument marker. 136 00:09:59,340 --> 00:10:02,692 Now, is it a reason marker or a conclusion marker? 137 00:10:02,692 --> 00:10:07,893 Well, the conclusion, the thing that's getting explained, is that Clinton used 138 00:10:07,893 --> 00:10:11,451 his authority. So this must be a reason or a premise 139 00:10:11,451 --> 00:10:14,735 marker. You can also put P for premise marker, or 140 00:10:14,735 --> 00:10:18,704 R for reason marker. Now, in response to plans of the Dutch 141 00:10:18,704 --> 00:10:23,768 Company, Andalex to mine coal on the Kaiparowits Plateau, President Clinton 142 00:10:23,768 --> 00:10:28,900 used his authority under the Antiquities Act to establish the new monument. 143 00:10:28,900 --> 00:10:34,777 Now this is actually a pretty tricky one. We know that, the plans of the company 144 00:10:34,777 --> 00:10:39,579 are the premise that explains the conclusion that Clinton used his 145 00:10:39,579 --> 00:10:41,730 authority. But what's the word, 146 00:10:41,730 --> 00:10:46,040 underdoing. Well under means is the Antiquities Act 147 00:10:46,040 --> 00:10:50,267 that gave him that authority. That explains why he had that authority 148 00:10:50,267 --> 00:10:55,046 and justified him in doing what he was doing namely establishing the monument. 149 00:10:55,046 --> 00:11:00,008 So, the word under suggests that there is another argument in the background here 150 00:11:00,008 --> 00:11:04,419 that the Antiquities Act gives the president the authority to establish 151 00:11:04,419 --> 00:11:07,605 monuments and President Clinton used that authority. 152 00:11:07,605 --> 00:11:12,077 So, the Antiquities Act is again a premise or as I said you can call it a 153 00:11:12,077 --> 00:11:17,582 reason marker for the premise that the Antiquities Act gives the President that 154 00:11:17,582 --> 00:11:23,192 authority and that justifies Clinton in using his authority, or explains why he 155 00:11:23,192 --> 00:11:28,589 was able to establish the monument. And the word to also indicates that what 156 00:11:28,589 --> 00:11:34,056 comes after it is, establishing the new monument, that's what he was trying to 157 00:11:34,056 --> 00:11:37,039 do. That also is an argument that explains 158 00:11:37,039 --> 00:11:39,524 why he did it. He had the authority. 159 00:11:39,524 --> 00:11:42,720 But you don't always exercise your authority. 160 00:11:42,720 --> 00:11:45,593 Right? And so, the point of exercising the 161 00:11:45,593 --> 00:11:50,919 authority, the reason why he exercise his authority was to establish the new 162 00:11:50,919 --> 00:11:54,002 monument. Again, it might seem tricky to keep 163 00:11:54,002 --> 00:11:59,749 siting the word to as an argument marker but think about it, you can substitute in 164 00:11:59,749 --> 00:12:03,119 order to. He uses authority in order to establish 165 00:12:03,119 --> 00:12:06,886 the new monument. Or, because he wanted to establish the 166 00:12:06,886 --> 00:12:10,448 new monument. And we learned a few lectures ago, that 167 00:12:10,448 --> 00:12:15,653 if you can substitute another argument marker for this particular word, then 168 00:12:15,653 --> 00:12:21,132 that shows that in this case, the word to is getting used as an argument marker. 169 00:12:21,132 --> 00:12:26,337 In this case the premise, because it's his wanting to establish the monument 170 00:12:26,337 --> 00:12:29,420 that explains why he used his authority. Okay? 171 00:12:29,420 --> 00:12:33,187 Here's a tricky one. What about the word authority? 172 00:12:33,187 --> 00:12:38,913 Well that's a really trick word and sometimes it's not completely clear how 173 00:12:38,913 --> 00:12:43,382 you want to mark it. Right, you might think that this word is 174 00:12:43,382 --> 00:12:48,863 getting used as a discounting word, namely answering a potential objection. 175 00:12:48,863 --> 00:12:54,936 Some people might say he didn't have the authority to do that but you might think 176 00:12:54,936 --> 00:12:59,660 it's a positive evaluation, having authority is a good thing. 177 00:12:59,660 --> 00:13:05,109 And you might think that it's an argument marker because is a reason why he would 178 00:13:05,109 --> 00:13:09,961 have the ability to set up the monument namely that he had the authority. 179 00:13:09,961 --> 00:13:15,277 But he doesn't actually say openly any of those things so, I would probably mark 180 00:13:15,277 --> 00:13:19,930 that as a nothing but I think it's better just to put a question mark. 181 00:13:19,930 --> 00:13:23,714 Because sometimes, words are not going to have one clear function or another. 182 00:13:23,714 --> 00:13:27,447 You know, we're doing our best to put them into these little bins of the 183 00:13:27,447 --> 00:13:31,490 different types of words, but sometimes, they're not going to fall neatly into one 184 00:13:31,490 --> 00:13:34,031 or the other, and you just have to recognize that. 185 00:13:34,031 --> 00:13:38,074 Of course, when it comes to the quizzes, we're not going to ask you about those 186 00:13:38,074 --> 00:13:41,030 kinds of words, but it's worth knowing that they're there. 187 00:13:41,030 --> 00:13:43,280 Okay? Now. 188 00:13:43,280 --> 00:13:47,226 Let's move on. Setting aside for protection, what he 189 00:13:47,226 --> 00:13:51,791 described as some of the most remarkable land in the world. 190 00:13:51,791 --> 00:13:56,311 Again, what is that telling you? Setting aside for protection that it 191 00:13:56,311 --> 00:13:59,865 tells you why he used his authority to establish the monument. 192 00:13:59,865 --> 00:14:04,165 So again, we've got an implicit reason here but, notice there's just a space 193 00:14:04,165 --> 00:14:07,605 there's no actual word. There could be marked as an argument 194 00:14:07,605 --> 00:14:11,848 marker but still there's a separate argument here he set it aside for the 195 00:14:11,848 --> 00:14:14,829 protection. That was why he established the monument. 196 00:14:14,829 --> 00:14:18,212 That's why he used his authority to establish the monument. 197 00:14:18,212 --> 00:14:21,480 If you want to include that part of the argument as well. 198 00:14:21,480 --> 00:14:22,972 Okay? For protection. 199 00:14:22,972 --> 00:14:26,928 Protection again, that's going to be evaluative, right? 200 00:14:26,928 --> 00:14:31,257 Because to protect something is to keep it safe from harm. 201 00:14:31,257 --> 00:14:34,392 Harm is bad. So protecting it must be good. 202 00:14:34,392 --> 00:14:39,691 When you explain what protection is, you're going to need to use the words 203 00:14:39,691 --> 00:14:43,050 good and bad, as we saw in the first sentence. 204 00:14:43,050 --> 00:14:49,433 What about these little quotation marks. I love quotation marks you gotta watch 205 00:14:49,433 --> 00:14:53,554 out for them. What he described as some of the most 206 00:14:53,554 --> 00:14:59,129 remarkable land in the world. Why is Robert Redford quoting President 207 00:14:59,129 --> 00:15:03,250 Clinton and saying how Clinton described this land? 208 00:15:03,250 --> 00:15:08,054 Because if you're trying to convince Clinton and trying to convince the 209 00:15:08,054 --> 00:15:12,724 general public to try to convince Clinton, there's nothing better than 210 00:15:12,724 --> 00:15:16,928 quoting Clinton himself. I mean, after all, Clinton can't say, I'm 211 00:15:16,928 --> 00:15:18,463 not an authority. Right? 212 00:15:18,463 --> 00:15:23,601 So, those quotation marks and saying that he described it, that all amounts to 213 00:15:23,601 --> 00:15:26,803 assuring. He's assuring Clinton that, that has to 214 00:15:26,803 --> 00:15:30,220 be true because after all, you said it yourself. 215 00:15:30,220 --> 00:15:37,381 And then he says, I couldn't agree more. Well that's a different type of assuring. 216 00:15:37,381 --> 00:15:43,200 Remember when we saw that some assuring terms were authoritative. 217 00:15:43,200 --> 00:15:48,502 And other assuring terms were reflexive. Well quoting President Clinton is an 218 00:15:48,502 --> 00:15:51,876 authoritative assurance, it's citing an authority. 219 00:15:51,876 --> 00:15:55,043 I couldn't agree more says how much he agrees. 220 00:15:55,043 --> 00:15:58,555 Or how much certainty he has. It certainly suggests. 221 00:15:58,555 --> 00:16:02,686 And so he seems to be assuring you but on a different basis, 222 00:16:02,686 --> 00:16:07,231 Clinton and I both agree. We might disagree about other things, but 223 00:16:07,231 --> 00:16:13,080 we agree about this which gives you some reason to be sure that it must be true. 224 00:16:13,080 --> 00:16:17,318 Okay. We're through with two sentences. 225 00:16:17,318 --> 00:16:18,586 All right. Next. 226 00:16:18,586 --> 00:16:23,572 For over two decades. The word for is sometimes an argument 227 00:16:23,572 --> 00:16:26,530 here. Is it an argument marker here? 228 00:16:26,530 --> 00:16:28,483 No. How can you tell that? 229 00:16:28,483 --> 00:16:32,319 It's actually nothing here. But how can you tell that? 230 00:16:32,319 --> 00:16:37,747 Try substituting an argument marker. You can't say, because over two decades, 231 00:16:37,747 --> 00:16:41,582 many have fought battle over battle. It's not because. 232 00:16:41,582 --> 00:16:46,793 It's just saying, during that period. The term for, and the words after it, 233 00:16:46,793 --> 00:16:50,845 over two decades, are simply being used to indicate time. 234 00:16:50,845 --> 00:16:54,319 Not to indicate any kind of reason, in this case. 235 00:16:54,319 --> 00:17:00,340 So it should be marked as nothing. Many have fought battle after battle. 236 00:17:00,340 --> 00:17:04,771 Is that a guarding term? Sometimes many is a guarding term. 237 00:17:04,771 --> 00:17:09,515 Instead of saying all, you say many. But here you say many have fought battle 238 00:17:09,515 --> 00:17:12,635 after battle. Nobody thinks all have fought battle 239 00:17:12,635 --> 00:17:16,754 after battle to keep the mining conglomerates from despoiling the 240 00:17:16,754 --> 00:17:19,438 country. After all, the mining conglomerates 241 00:17:19,438 --> 00:17:23,994 themselves didn't, so, it can't be all. So, nobody would expect the word all. 242 00:17:23,994 --> 00:17:28,363 So in this case, the word many is not functioning to guard the term by 243 00:17:28,363 --> 00:17:32,232 weakening it, because it never started out as the strong claim all. 244 00:17:32,232 --> 00:17:36,366 There was nothing to weaken. They fought battle after battle. 245 00:17:36,366 --> 00:17:40,095 Well, you might think that battles are a bad thing. 246 00:17:40,095 --> 00:17:45,316 So you might mark that as e minus. Because, after all, conflict is a bad 247 00:17:45,316 --> 00:17:50,090 thing and in battles people get hurt and try to hurt each other. 248 00:17:50,090 --> 00:17:55,460 So to explain what a battle is you need to introduce an evaluative word. 249 00:17:55,460 --> 00:17:58,442 And what did they fight those battles for? 250 00:17:58,442 --> 00:18:02,632 To keep mining conglomerates from despoiling the treasures. 251 00:18:02,632 --> 00:18:05,685 Right? Again, to can be seen as, in order to. 252 00:18:05,685 --> 00:18:09,733 That's why they fought the battle. It explains the battle. 253 00:18:09,733 --> 00:18:15,130 Or because they wanted to keep the mining conglomerates from despoiling the 254 00:18:15,130 --> 00:18:18,752 countries. So, it looks like to there is indicating 255 00:18:18,752 --> 00:18:24,840 the premise in an argument that explains why they fought battle after battle. 256 00:18:24,840 --> 00:18:28,048 'Kay? Mining conglomerates, is mining bad? 257 00:18:28,048 --> 00:18:30,105 No. Are conglomerates bad? 258 00:18:30,105 --> 00:18:34,630 Not necessarily. You can explain what a conglomerate is 259 00:18:34,630 --> 00:18:40,554 without talking about good or bad. From despoiling, now wait a minute, now 260 00:18:40,554 --> 00:18:45,655 we've got an evaluative term. It's an evaluative negative term. 261 00:18:45,655 --> 00:18:49,934 Despoiling means, spoiling things or making them bad. 262 00:18:49,934 --> 00:18:55,199 And what about treasures? Treasures is going to be an evaluative 263 00:18:55,199 --> 00:18:59,180 plus term because treasures are good things. 264 00:18:59,180 --> 00:19:03,056 And stunning. Well, stunning is not quite so clear. 265 00:19:03,056 --> 00:19:07,882 Stunning means it stuns you. You react to it in a certain way. 266 00:19:07,882 --> 00:19:12,549 You're stunned. You look at it, and you feel, huh, and 267 00:19:12,549 --> 00:19:16,900 you stop still again. Just look at the pictures of this 268 00:19:16,900 --> 00:19:18,720 country. It is stunning. 269 00:19:23,800 --> 00:19:26,990 But to call it stunning. Is that evaluative? 270 00:19:26,990 --> 00:19:30,625 Well, you can get stunned by how bad something is. 271 00:19:30,625 --> 00:19:35,077 And so, it's not clear that stunning in itself is evaluation. 272 00:19:35,077 --> 00:19:40,196 Clearly, Redford, in using the word stunning, is talking about it being 273 00:19:40,196 --> 00:19:44,351 stunningly good. But the word stunning by itself doesn't 274 00:19:44,351 --> 00:19:46,280 seem to be evaluative. Now, 275 00:19:46,280 --> 00:19:50,104 the next word of the last sentence in this paragraph. 276 00:19:50,104 --> 00:19:53,280 Just a temporal indicator, so that's nothing. 277 00:19:53,280 --> 00:19:56,960 We thought, okay? Thought means it's not really true. 278 00:19:56,960 --> 00:20:01,506 He's just guarding it. It's not really true that some of it was 279 00:20:01,506 --> 00:20:03,166 safe. We thought it was. 280 00:20:03,166 --> 00:20:07,280 Some of it was safe, or even at least some of it was safe. 281 00:20:07,280 --> 00:20:11,107 Now that's going to be a guarding term, because it's not saying all of it was 282 00:20:11,107 --> 00:20:13,677 safe. It's just a little part of it and that'll 283 00:20:13,677 --> 00:20:16,434 become important later in the argument. Whoa! 284 00:20:16,434 --> 00:20:21,198 Look at this diagram! It's got letters all over the place and 285 00:20:21,198 --> 00:20:26,822 they're running into each other. That shows you what close analysis does. 286 00:20:26,822 --> 00:20:32,992 When you start looking in detail, a lot of the different words are doing things 287 00:20:32,992 --> 00:20:38,927 that you can find out by trying to put them into these different categories. 288 00:20:38,927 --> 00:20:43,457 So, we've finished the first paragraph. An entire paragraph. 289 00:20:43,457 --> 00:20:44,629 Oh my God. Oh [LAUGH] Joy!