1 00:00:02,620 --> 00:00:08,166 On to the second paragraph. The first sentence is really simple, 2 00:00:08,166 --> 00:00:09,399 not so. Of course. 3 00:00:09,399 --> 00:00:15,034 it's referring back to the last sentence of the first paragraph. 4 00:00:15,034 --> 00:00:19,612 We said, now we thought at least some of it was safe. 5 00:00:19,612 --> 00:00:25,335 And saying, no, it wasn't safe. So, what are we going to say about this 6 00:00:25,335 --> 00:00:29,210 sentence? Well, what about the little word, so? 7 00:00:29,210 --> 00:00:33,769 So, can be an argument marker. It can indicate that what follows it, is 8 00:00:33,769 --> 00:00:36,809 a conclusion. But, is that what it's doing here? 9 00:00:36,809 --> 00:00:40,575 I don't think so. As we just saw like in, I don't think so, 10 00:00:40,575 --> 00:00:45,267 the word, so, can be used in many ways, where it's not an argument marker. 11 00:00:45,267 --> 00:00:48,505 And this is saying, it's not so. It's not that way. 12 00:00:48,505 --> 00:00:53,131 So there's no argument here. So that would get marked with a big N for 13 00:00:53,131 --> 00:00:54,526 nothing. Now, 14 00:00:54,526 --> 00:01:00,474 what about shocking, as it sounds, shocking? 15 00:01:00,474 --> 00:01:07,122 Well, is shocking always bad? Remember we saw in the first paragraph 16 00:01:07,122 --> 00:01:10,535 the word stunning. Well, stunning stuns you, and shocking 17 00:01:10,535 --> 00:01:13,533 shocks you. And it's telling you that you have some 18 00:01:13,533 --> 00:01:16,766 kind of reaction. But it's not telling you whether that 19 00:01:16,766 --> 00:01:20,470 reaction is due to the thing being good, or the thing being bad. 20 00:01:20,470 --> 00:01:23,115 You can get shocked by something good or bad. 21 00:01:23,115 --> 00:01:25,702 It can be shockingly good, or shockingly bad. 22 00:01:25,702 --> 00:01:30,720 And so the word shocking by itself. Doesn't indicate that it's e plus or e 23 00:01:30,720 --> 00:01:36,414 minus, so again, you get a nothing. I mention it only because it's clear that 24 00:01:36,414 --> 00:01:42,336 Robert Redford thinks that shocking is bad, that this should not have happened. 25 00:01:42,336 --> 00:01:47,575 He's suggesting that it's bad. But the word shocking, itself, is not an 26 00:01:47,575 --> 00:01:52,380 evaluative word. What about, as it sounds? 27 00:01:53,760 --> 00:01:57,668 Well, he's saying that it sounds that way. 28 00:01:57,668 --> 00:02:02,456 He's not saying that it is that way. He's not saying that it may sound that 29 00:02:02,456 --> 00:02:05,399 way. He's saying it does sound that way, which 30 00:02:05,399 --> 00:02:10,455 is to say, it seems that way to him. Which is not to say it really is true, so 31 00:02:10,455 --> 00:02:14,380 he's guarding the client. He's not saying that it really is 32 00:02:14,380 --> 00:02:17,306 shocking. He's saying that it seems shocking. 33 00:02:17,306 --> 00:02:22,495 So he's guarding the client, in order to avoid someone objecting that it's not 34 00:02:22,495 --> 00:02:27,152 really all that shocking, after all. Say, well it sounds shocking, and in 35 00:02:27,152 --> 00:02:30,877 order to make that part of his argument more defensible. 36 00:02:30,877 --> 00:02:35,800 Because it's not really essential to his argument, that it's shocking or not. 37 00:02:35,800 --> 00:02:41,307 So what's supposed to be shocking? Clinton's Bureau of Land Management, or 38 00:02:41,307 --> 00:02:45,340 BLM, has approved oil drilling within the monument. 39 00:02:45,340 --> 00:02:49,544 Notice that there is no guarding at all here he just states it. 40 00:02:49,544 --> 00:02:53,481 They did it they approved oil drilling within the monument. 41 00:02:53,481 --> 00:02:57,686 And, that's because it's not really something he is arguing for. 42 00:02:57,686 --> 00:03:02,224 He's actually opposed to it. It's something that his opponents might 43 00:03:02,224 --> 00:03:07,496 support but he doesn't so, he doesn't want to guard it since he wants to say it 44 00:03:07,496 --> 00:03:12,635 just happened as a matter of fact that they approved it so, there's I nothing 45 00:03:12,635 --> 00:03:15,905 that we need to mark in that particular sentence. 46 00:03:15,905 --> 00:03:19,838 Next sentence. BLM or the Bureau of Land Management has 47 00:03:19,838 --> 00:03:24,674 given Conoco Incorporated, a subsidiary of the corporate giant DuPont permission 48 00:03:24,674 --> 00:03:28,720 to drill for oil and gas in the heart of the new monument. 49 00:03:28,720 --> 00:03:35,273 Well, there's a lot going on here that we could mention, no, BLM has given Conoco a 50 00:03:35,273 --> 00:03:40,695 subsidiary that explains how they got permission by siding the BLM. 51 00:03:40,695 --> 00:03:44,579 It's a subsidiary of the corporate giant DuPont. 52 00:03:44,579 --> 00:03:50,647 He's certainly suggesting that giant suggested that he's the small guy, you 53 00:03:50,647 --> 00:03:56,958 know, up against the big corporate giant. It might even has some connotation of 54 00:03:56,958 --> 00:04:01,813 corporate giants being bad, but it doesn't actually say that. 55 00:04:01,813 --> 00:04:07,180 And so, again giant should be marked as nothing. 56 00:04:07,180 --> 00:04:12,549 What about permission? To say that someone's permitted to do 57 00:04:12,549 --> 00:04:16,789 something, is to say that it's not wrong. That's what permitted means. 58 00:04:16,789 --> 00:04:21,715 Now of course, if you're talking about a legal permission, then to say that it's 59 00:04:21,715 --> 00:04:24,708 permitted is to say that it's not legally wrong. 60 00:04:24,708 --> 00:04:28,583 It's not forbidden by law. It still might be morally wrong but at 61 00:04:28,583 --> 00:04:32,166 least it's legally permitted means it's not legally forbidden. 62 00:04:32,166 --> 00:04:36,327 And so if forbidden and wrong are evaluative words, to deny them and say 63 00:04:36,327 --> 00:04:39,101 it's not wrong looks like an evaluative as well. 64 00:04:39,101 --> 00:04:43,435 But one of the interesting things about this evaluative word is it's clear 65 00:04:43,435 --> 00:04:48,046 whether it's positive or negative. It means it's not wrong, but that doesn't 66 00:04:48,046 --> 00:04:52,112 mean it is good or is right. It simply means it's not forbidden. 67 00:04:52,112 --> 00:04:55,145 So, it's not clear whether to put plus or minus. 68 00:04:55,145 --> 00:04:58,050 I'll just leave it as a plain E in that case, 69 00:04:58,050 --> 00:05:02,858 okay? Now, what did they have permission to do to 70 00:05:02,858 --> 00:05:06,212 drill for oil and gas in the heart of the new monument, 71 00:05:06,212 --> 00:05:08,530 okay? That's what the permission was a 72 00:05:08,530 --> 00:05:12,128 permission to do. The word to there is not being used as an 73 00:05:12,128 --> 00:05:17,008 argument marker in this case because you can't say they get permission in order 74 00:05:17,008 --> 00:05:17,556 to, right? 75 00:05:17,556 --> 00:05:20,545 What they gave them permission to do was to drill, 76 00:05:20,545 --> 00:05:21,887 okay? What about drill? 77 00:05:21,887 --> 00:05:24,862 Well clearly Robert Redford doesn't want them to drill. 78 00:05:24,862 --> 00:05:27,564 So he thinks that's bad. But he doesn't say it's bad. 79 00:05:27,564 --> 00:05:30,837 He just calls it drilling. And they're drilling for oil and gas. 80 00:05:30,837 --> 00:05:33,955 Well a lot of people think that oil and gas are good things. 81 00:05:33,955 --> 00:05:36,137 But they don't say here that they're good. 82 00:05:36,137 --> 00:05:38,580 They're simply saying that they're oil and gas. 83 00:05:38,580 --> 00:05:42,606 The coolest part of this because I think, is that metaphor at the end. 84 00:05:42,606 --> 00:05:47,106 I mean you have this image that there is this poor monument and somebody is 85 00:05:47,106 --> 00:05:51,724 drilling right in its heart you know like, what could be crueler than to drill 86 00:05:51,724 --> 00:05:55,099 in the heart of a young monument the poor innocent thing. 87 00:05:55,099 --> 00:05:59,658 So, this metaphor of the heart is a nice rhetorical device that fits with the 88 00:05:59,658 --> 00:06:04,277 drilling and is building up people's opposition to what Redford wants them to 89 00:06:04,277 --> 00:06:07,356 be opposed to. But it does actually give an argument 90 00:06:07,356 --> 00:06:12,293 it's just stating it in a flower or a metaphorical way, it will get their 91 00:06:12,293 --> 00:06:13,827 feelings going, okay? 92 00:06:13,827 --> 00:06:19,102 You may wonder. Notice he doesn't say, you do wonder. 93 00:06:19,102 --> 00:06:22,620 He says you may wonder. So this is, 94 00:06:22,620 --> 00:06:26,427 tell me, a guarding term. So you should mark it with G. 95 00:06:26,427 --> 00:06:31,743 And you may wonder, as I do, as is sometimes used as an argument marker, but 96 00:06:31,743 --> 00:06:37,418 here you're not saying that you wonder because I do or I wonder because you do. 97 00:06:37,418 --> 00:06:42,878 The word because can't be substituted for as, so to say as I do is simply to 98 00:06:42,878 --> 00:06:48,410 conjoin the two and say you wonder, and I also wonder or you may wonder because I 99 00:06:48,410 --> 00:06:51,499 don't know whether you are or not, and I do. 100 00:06:51,499 --> 00:06:54,900 And what we wonder is how can this happen? 101 00:06:54,900 --> 00:06:58,620 Now we have a rhetorical question. How can this happen? 102 00:06:58,620 --> 00:07:01,965 Well that's obviously suggesting. It shouldn't a happened, 103 00:07:01,965 --> 00:07:06,133 you know, how could something have gone so wrong, as it did in this case? 104 00:07:06,133 --> 00:07:10,418 But he didn't actually say that. He simply asked the rhetorical questions. 105 00:07:10,418 --> 00:07:13,412 An that's really the trick of rhetorical questions. 106 00:07:13,412 --> 00:07:17,286 Notice there're a bunch of them here. Wasn't the whole purpose this? 107 00:07:17,286 --> 00:07:19,810 Didn't the President say he was doing this? 108 00:07:19,810 --> 00:07:23,625 Then these three sentences in a row are all rhetorical questions. 109 00:07:23,625 --> 00:07:26,208 So what's the trick of rhetorical questions? 110 00:07:26,208 --> 00:07:30,200 The point of a rhetorical question is to get you to give the answer. 111 00:07:30,200 --> 00:07:36,147 If I say, how can this happen and someone thinks to themselves well the government 112 00:07:36,147 --> 00:07:40,009 messes up all the time. Then you've got that audience member who 113 00:07:40,009 --> 00:07:44,473 answered the question to be saying it themselves and there's nothing more 114 00:07:44,473 --> 00:07:49,300 forceful in an argument than to get your audience to say it themselves when you 115 00:07:49,300 --> 00:07:52,799 don't have to say it. And, that's the trick of a rhetorical 116 00:07:52,799 --> 00:07:57,626 question and what Redford is doing here is putting three of them right in a row 117 00:07:57,626 --> 00:08:01,410 so that you'll have to go along with him three times in a row. 118 00:08:01,410 --> 00:08:06,089 And then that obviously has an effect on your feeling like you're with him. 119 00:08:06,089 --> 00:08:11,019 On you feeling like you agree with him. That's the effect he's trying to create 120 00:08:11,019 --> 00:08:13,837 by using these rhetorical questions. Okay, 121 00:08:13,837 --> 00:08:20,756 what's the whole purpose of creating? Notice the whole purpose is to preserve. 122 00:08:20,756 --> 00:08:24,674 That phrase, the whole purpose, goes with it. 123 00:08:24,674 --> 00:08:29,230 Cause we say the purpose is, to preserve. And there. 124 00:08:29,230 --> 00:08:34,923 As before, in the previous paragraph, we're signaling an explanation because if 125 00:08:34,923 --> 00:08:40,771 you want to explain why Clinton created the monument, then the answer was, to 126 00:08:40,771 --> 00:08:45,311 preserve the colorful cliffs and sweeping arches and so on. 127 00:08:45,311 --> 00:08:51,467 So this is going to be an explanation and to say that's the purpose is to say that 128 00:08:51,467 --> 00:08:56,853 you created it because you wanted to preserve or in order to preserve. 129 00:08:56,853 --> 00:09:01,014 Then this whole purpose. Marks the conclusion, and the, to 130 00:09:01,014 --> 00:09:05,137 preserve, marks the premise. And we have a little argument. 131 00:09:05,137 --> 00:09:09,984 He wanted to preserve his colorful cliffs, therefore, he created the 132 00:09:09,984 --> 00:09:13,456 monument. And we've got the conclusion marked by 133 00:09:13,456 --> 00:09:18,520 the whole purpose, and the premise or the reason, marked by the word to. 134 00:09:18,520 --> 00:09:19,612 Okay. Preserve. 135 00:09:19,612 --> 00:09:24,059 We've already seen a word a lot like that namely protect. 136 00:09:24,059 --> 00:09:28,818 And we saw that when you protect something it has to be good. 137 00:09:28,818 --> 00:09:34,201 Preserve also means to preserve it against things that would harm it. 138 00:09:34,201 --> 00:09:40,053 If harm is bad, then preserving and protecting against harm must be good, so 139 00:09:40,053 --> 00:09:43,472 we can make that as E plus. Its colorful cliffs. 140 00:09:43,472 --> 00:09:48,001 Colorful sounds good, but of course colorful just means it's colorful. 141 00:09:48,001 --> 00:09:52,924 Sweeping arches, broad and sweeping and curves, well that sounds good, that's 142 00:09:52,924 --> 00:09:58,174 sounds beautiful the way he describes it. And it surely is, as you can see in any 143 00:09:58,174 --> 00:10:02,764 picture. But, sweeping doesn't itself say it's 144 00:10:02,764 --> 00:10:07,511 good or beautiful or so on. Another extraordinary we already saw 145 00:10:07,511 --> 00:10:09,440 extraordinary. So colorful, 146 00:10:09,440 --> 00:10:13,746 sweeping, and extraordinary. They're certainly being used here by 147 00:10:13,746 --> 00:10:18,927 Redford to suggest that these are good. But they're not openly saying they're 148 00:10:18,927 --> 00:10:21,417 good. So we don't want to mark those as 149 00:10:21,417 --> 00:10:23,503 evaluative words. But resources. 150 00:10:23,503 --> 00:10:27,070 Now, resources are things that can give you abilities. 151 00:10:27,070 --> 00:10:30,838 And when you have more resources, you're able to do more. 152 00:10:30,838 --> 00:10:36,019 So, abilities sounds like a good thing. And resources are the things that make 153 00:10:36,019 --> 00:10:39,384 you more able. That give you more freedom and more 154 00:10:39,384 --> 00:10:39,990 power. So. 155 00:10:39,990 --> 00:10:42,870 At-least many people want to mark that as a D+ work. 156 00:10:42,870 --> 00:10:45,222 Some of these are going to be questionable. 157 00:10:45,222 --> 00:10:49,867 They are not obvious as others, so I am suggesting one way of interpreting this 158 00:10:49,867 --> 00:10:52,512 passage, and I hope you are following the law. 159 00:10:52,512 --> 00:10:56,863 But if you have some questions about the particular cases, that's going to be 160 00:10:56,863 --> 00:10:59,450 natural. It's partly coz our language is not 161 00:10:59,450 --> 00:11:00,797 totally precised. Okay. 162 00:11:00,797 --> 00:11:05,795 Large scale mineral development. Well, that's not bad if it's done in the 163 00:11:05,795 --> 00:11:09,128 right places. So I don't think that's evaluative 164 00:11:09,128 --> 00:11:12,182 either. Didn't the President say that he was 165 00:11:12,182 --> 00:11:16,417 saving these lands? Well didn't the President say that he was 166 00:11:16,417 --> 00:11:20,652 saving these lands? Well that suggests that he's assuring you 167 00:11:20,652 --> 00:11:25,788 that in fact he was saving these lands. He should know, whether that's what he 168 00:11:25,788 --> 00:11:29,750 was doing since, after all, that's what he, you know did himself. 169 00:11:29,750 --> 00:11:32,817 So he should be able to say, what he did and why. 170 00:11:32,817 --> 00:11:37,738 Didn't the President say he was saving? Saving could be marked as E plus, just 171 00:11:37,738 --> 00:11:43,751 like protect and preserve? because it saves it from something bad 172 00:11:43,751 --> 00:11:48,285 happening. These lands from mining companies for our 173 00:11:48,285 --> 00:11:52,771 children and grandchildren. Now, what about the word for? 174 00:11:52,771 --> 00:11:56,501 This explains again why he is saving these lands. 175 00:11:56,501 --> 00:12:00,156 He's saving them for grandchildren and children. 176 00:12:00,156 --> 00:12:06,322 That means the reason for saving these lands is to benefit our grandchildren and 177 00:12:06,322 --> 00:12:09,367 children. So, for is going to be a reason or 178 00:12:09,367 --> 00:12:13,250 premise marker. It marks the reason or premise that 179 00:12:13,250 --> 00:12:19,188 justifies saving the lands and explains why in fact the president did want to 180 00:12:19,188 --> 00:12:20,725 save the lands. Okay? 181 00:12:20,725 --> 00:12:26,891 So now we're through with paragraph two. And I hope you're kind of getting the 182 00:12:26,891 --> 00:12:32,820 feel for how to do close analysis. And so, what I want to do now is give you 183 00:12:32,820 --> 00:12:36,220 a chance to practice the skill on your own. 184 00:12:36,220 --> 00:12:40,656 We'll put up paragraph three, mark certain words. 185 00:12:40,656 --> 00:12:47,681 And your task in the exercise, will be to put the right letter next to, or to 186 00:12:47,681 --> 00:12:52,487 indicate the function of that word in the paragraph. 187 00:12:52,487 --> 00:12:59,321 And the letter you put should be either R or P for premise marker, C for conclusion 188 00:12:59,321 --> 00:13:05,584 marker, A for assuring, G for guarding, D for discounting, E+, E- for positive and 189 00:13:05,584 --> 00:13:09,400 negative evaluation. And you can go through the third 190 00:13:09,400 --> 00:13:11,920 paragraph yourself in the exercise.