1
00:00:03,280 --> 00:00:06,413
Welcome back. 
Now you've done paragraph three 

2
00:00:06,413 --> 00:00:09,965
yourselves and we're going to go on to 
paragraph four. 

3
00:00:09,965 --> 00:00:13,308
Might seem like were doing an awful lot 
of this, 

4
00:00:13,308 --> 00:00:18,462
but remember, the only way to learn close 
analysis is to practice, practice, 

5
00:00:18,462 --> 00:00:23,894
practice, practice, practice over and 
over again on as many passages as you can 

6
00:00:23,894 --> 00:00:26,889
find. 
So we're going to spend one more lecture 

7
00:00:26,889 --> 00:00:32,599
going though paragraphs four and five of 
Robert Redford's piece in the Washington 

8
00:00:32,599 --> 00:00:35,803
Post from 1997. 
The title was, A Piece of God's 

9
00:00:35,803 --> 00:00:40,254
Handiwork.. 
In paragraph 4 starts, sounds like 

10
00:00:40,254 --> 00:00:45,055
Washington double-speak to me. 
Well, what is it that sounds like 

11
00:00:45,055 --> 00:00:49,532
Washington double-speak to him. 
It's the sentence at the end of the 

12
00:00:49,532 --> 00:00:54,811
previous paragraph that you analyzed and, 
that's the claim that they issued the 

13
00:00:54,811 --> 00:01:00,023
permit without a full review using an 
abbreviated review and they didn't even 

14
00:01:00,023 --> 00:01:02,830
look at the leases on other federal 
lands. 

15
00:01:02,830 --> 00:01:07,908
So, he's saying that sounds like the kind 
of thing Washington does when they 

16
00:01:07,908 --> 00:01:11,250
double-speak. 
Double-speak is obviously a metaphor. 

17
00:01:11,250 --> 00:01:14,630
Right? 
It's a metaphor for saying one thing to 

18
00:01:14,630 --> 00:01:19,995
one person, another thing to another 
person or sometimes, saying one thing 

19
00:01:19,995 --> 00:01:25,361
that seems to mean one thing when what 
they really mean is another thing. 

20
00:01:25,361 --> 00:01:30,432
But however you interpret the metaphor of 
double-speak, it's not good. 

21
00:01:30,432 --> 00:01:36,385
So we can indicate that double-speaking 
is a negative evaluation and it's a 

22
00:01:36,385 --> 00:01:39,692
metaphor, but clearly negative in its 
meeting. 

23
00:01:39,692 --> 00:01:44,470
You wouldn't say someone who's speaking 
properly is double-speak. 

24
00:01:44,470 --> 00:01:50,808
Notice however, that he has this phrase 
sounds like and it sounds like it, to 

25
00:01:50,808 --> 00:01:53,060
him, 
what sounds like doing. 

26
00:01:53,060 --> 00:01:57,460
Well, he's not saying that it is 
Washington double-speak. 

27
00:01:57,460 --> 00:02:00,817
So he's guarding it. 
He's weakening the claim. 

28
00:02:00,817 --> 00:02:05,368
He's not saying it is. 
He's saying it sounds like and so that 

29
00:02:05,368 --> 00:02:09,212
can be labeled as a guarding term. 
Okay. 

30
00:02:09,212 --> 00:02:17,313
So he's guarded that claim, but now he's 
going to go on and argue against the plan 

31
00:02:17,313 --> 00:02:23,955
that Washington was using. 
I've spent considerable time on these 

32
00:02:23,955 --> 00:02:27,647
extraordinary lands for years. 
I've spent for years. 

33
00:02:27,647 --> 00:02:31,747
Let's just circle that whole thing to 
indicate that whole phrase, because it's 

34
00:02:31,747 --> 00:02:34,480
just all doing the same thing. 
What's it doing? 

35
00:02:34,480 --> 00:02:38,153
It's assuring you. 
You say, because I have spent so much 

36
00:02:38,153 --> 00:02:41,492
time on these lands, 
I spent so many years on them. 

37
00:02:41,492 --> 00:02:45,699
You can trust me to know what's going on. 
I've got the evidence. 

38
00:02:45,699 --> 00:02:50,107
Notice, like other assuring terms, it's 
not giving you the evidence. 

39
00:02:50,107 --> 00:02:54,381
It's saying, you ought to trust me, 
because I've got the evidence. 

40
00:02:54,381 --> 00:02:58,522
I've had the experience. 
So it's a perfect example of assuring, 

41
00:02:58,522 --> 00:03:03,865
because it's saying that he has reasons 
without actually giving the reasons and 

42
00:03:03,865 --> 00:03:09,305
that's why you can't question his reasons 
because you haven't spent considerable 

43
00:03:09,305 --> 00:03:14,548
time on those extraordinary lands. 
And, of course, he follows that up with 

44
00:03:14,548 --> 00:03:17,124
another assuring term. 
He says, and I know. 

45
00:03:17,124 --> 00:03:20,272
When you say, I know, 
that's an assuring term, 

46
00:03:20,272 --> 00:03:25,781
a mental assuring term, because it's 
describing the mental state as being one 

47
00:03:25,781 --> 00:03:29,358
of knowledge. 
Knowledge implies truth, and to say I 

48
00:03:29,358 --> 00:03:33,937
know it is to imply that it's true to 
ensure you that it's true. 

49
00:03:33,937 --> 00:03:35,582
Okay? 
But what does he know? 

50
00:03:35,582 --> 00:03:40,375
He knows that an oil rig in their midst, 
would have a major impact. 

51
00:03:40,375 --> 00:03:42,880
And what about that? 
A major impact. 

52
00:03:42,880 --> 00:03:45,909
Okay? 
Now he's clearly saying it would be a bad 

53
00:03:45,909 --> 00:03:48,809
impact, but does he come out and say it's 
bad? 

54
00:03:48,809 --> 00:03:50,550
No, 
he just says it's major. 

55
00:03:50,550 --> 00:03:53,957
Okay? 
So it's not an evaluative term that would 

56
00:03:53,957 --> 00:03:57,293
be labeled as nothing if nothing is an 
option. 

57
00:03:57,293 --> 00:04:01,933
So, he's clearly suggesting that it's 
bad, but he's not saying it, 

58
00:04:01,933 --> 00:04:05,776
so it shouldn't be marked as an 
evaluative term, okay? 

59
00:04:05,776 --> 00:04:09,184
Next, what's more. 
Well, what's more is kind of a 

60
00:04:09,184 --> 00:04:13,100
conjunction, 
but what came before this was an argument 

61
00:04:13,100 --> 00:04:16,929
that it would have a major impact based 
on his assurance. 

62
00:04:16,929 --> 00:04:21,901
And so when he says, once more, he's 
suggesting that what's going to come next 

63
00:04:21,901 --> 00:04:26,605
is yet another argument for why we 
shouldn't have these, these permits 

64
00:04:26,605 --> 00:04:29,561
issued. 
He's going to tell you other bad things 

65
00:04:29,561 --> 00:04:32,988
about them. 
So that can be a premise marker, because 

66
00:04:32,988 --> 00:04:37,728
what comes after it is the premise. 
They want to drill to find oil. 

67
00:04:37,728 --> 00:04:43,200
Well, we can say, to find oil, it's in 
order to find oil, that is going to 

68
00:04:43,200 --> 00:04:48,517
explain why they want to drill. 
It's a theleological explanation as we 

69
00:04:48,517 --> 00:04:54,451
saw in an earlier lecture and so that is 
going to be a reason marker, because 

70
00:04:54,451 --> 00:05:00,500
their desire to find oil is what explains 
their desire to want to drill. 

71
00:05:00,500 --> 00:05:03,048
Okay? 
Inevitably. 

72
00:05:03,048 --> 00:05:06,492
What's that? 
Assuring. 

73
00:05:06,492 --> 00:05:10,089
It's assuring you that it's obviously 
true. 

74
00:05:10,089 --> 00:05:13,601
There's no way around it. 
It is inevitable. 

75
00:05:13,601 --> 00:05:15,943
What's inevitable? 
More rigs, 

76
00:05:15,943 --> 00:05:18,034
more roads, 
new pipelines, 

77
00:05:18,034 --> 00:05:22,550
toxic waste, 
and bright lights would follow to get the 

78
00:05:22,550 --> 00:05:23,583
oil out. 
Okay? 

79
00:05:23,583 --> 00:05:27,950
He's assuring you that all of those 
things are going to happen. 

80
00:05:27,950 --> 00:05:32,826
The previous argument, before the what's 
more, was simply an oil rig. 

81
00:05:32,826 --> 00:05:37,629
Notice it's just an oil rig, 
one oil rig up there in that sentence, 

82
00:05:37,629 --> 00:05:41,486
but now we've got more rigs, more roads, 
new pipelines. 

83
00:05:41,486 --> 00:05:47,235
So if an oil rig has a major impact, all 
of this other stuff's going to a lot more 

84
00:05:47,235 --> 00:05:50,801
of an impact. 
That's the point of the what's more. 

85
00:05:50,801 --> 00:05:55,750
He's adding additional reasons why the 
permits should not be issued. 

86
00:05:55,750 --> 00:06:00,057
Okay? And they would follow, 
that means it's going to follow what? 

87
00:06:00,057 --> 00:06:01,995
In time. 
It's just temporal. 

88
00:06:01,995 --> 00:06:07,236
It's not saying anything more than it's 
going to follow at a later time, but 

89
00:06:07,236 --> 00:06:10,108
they're going to follow to get the oil 
out. 

90
00:06:10,108 --> 00:06:14,918
That explains why they would follow, 
because, right, you would need them in 

91
00:06:14,918 --> 00:06:19,657
order to get the oil out. 
So that's going to be an argument marker 

92
00:06:19,657 --> 00:06:22,528
itself. 
Is it a reason marker or is it a 

93
00:06:22,528 --> 00:06:24,180
conclusion marker? 
Well, 

94
00:06:24,180 --> 00:06:27,889
the conclusion is that all that's going 
to follow. 

95
00:06:27,889 --> 00:06:31,227
Right? 
And the premise is that it's needed in 

96
00:06:31,227 --> 00:06:36,050
order to get the oil out. 
So this is going to be a premise marker. 

97
00:06:36,050 --> 00:06:40,104
And the conclusion is that you get all 
that stuff, 

98
00:06:40,104 --> 00:06:43,671
the pipelines, the roads, the waste and 
so on. 

99
00:06:43,671 --> 00:06:47,482
Okay? 
So those are his reasons against giving a 

100
00:06:47,482 --> 00:06:52,479
permit and then he says, the BLM couldn't 
see this. 

101
00:06:52,479 --> 00:06:55,878
Okay? 
He just states it as a fact. 

102
00:06:55,878 --> 00:06:58,240
But, 
what's the but doing there? 

103
00:06:58,240 --> 00:07:02,575
Remember, what kind of word a but is. 
But is a discounting term. 

104
00:07:02,575 --> 00:07:07,415
He's answering an objection. 
The objection is, well, you say all that 

105
00:07:07,415 --> 00:07:12,905
would follow, but the BLM would disagree 
with you and they looked at it very 

106
00:07:12,905 --> 00:07:16,373
carefully and they're an authority or an 
expert. 

107
00:07:16,373 --> 00:07:19,452
So, 
the answer to that objection is the US 

108
00:07:19,452 --> 00:07:24,883
Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
Environmental Protection Agency did see 

109
00:07:24,883 --> 00:07:27,716
this. 
Notice that what comes after the but is 

110
00:07:27,716 --> 00:07:32,709
more important than what came before it. 
What he's doing is saying that there's a 

111
00:07:32,709 --> 00:07:37,456
contrast between what the BLM couldn't 
see and what the US Fish and Wildlife 

112
00:07:37,456 --> 00:07:40,909
Service and the Environmental Protective 
Agency did see, 

113
00:07:40,909 --> 00:07:45,656
but in addition to the contrast between 
those two, he's also saying it's more 

114
00:07:45,656 --> 00:07:50,650
important that the US Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the Environmental Protection 

115
00:07:50,650 --> 00:07:54,994
Agency did see it. 
Okay? So what comes after the but is 

116
00:07:54,994 --> 00:07:59,650
taken to be more important. 
And what did they see? 

117
00:07:59,650 --> 00:08:04,862
Both of these agencies recognized. 
Recognized implies, you can't recognize 

118
00:08:04,862 --> 00:08:10,573
things that aren't true you know, if you 
see somebody and you say, I recognize my 

119
00:08:10,573 --> 00:08:15,285
sister and it wasn't your sister, you 
didn't really recognize them. 

120
00:08:15,285 --> 00:08:19,996
So to say you recognize is to assure 
people that it's really true. 

121
00:08:19,996 --> 00:08:23,280
The devastating. 
Now devastating can't be good. 

122
00:08:23,280 --> 00:08:27,237
so that's E-, effects of extensive oil 
drilling. 

123
00:08:27,237 --> 00:08:29,044
Extensive, is that bad? 
No, 

124
00:08:29,044 --> 00:08:32,658
extensive oil drilling is good in the 
right places. 

125
00:08:32,658 --> 00:08:38,585
It gives us the kind of energy we need to 
be able to accomplish the goals that we 

126
00:08:38,585 --> 00:08:41,910
want. 
Maybe you wish you didn't need extensive 

127
00:08:41,910 --> 00:08:45,668
oil drilling, 
but, if you need it, then it's good when 

128
00:08:45,668 --> 00:08:49,861
it's done in the right place. 
And that drilling would have a 

129
00:08:49,861 --> 00:08:55,209
devastating effects on this area. 
And then those two agencies urge the BLM 

130
00:08:55,209 --> 00:08:58,190
to refuse to allow it. 
Okay. 

131
00:08:58,190 --> 00:09:01,349
Why? 
In order to protect the monument. 

132
00:09:01,349 --> 00:09:06,192
And again, we've seen this kind of 
argument repeatedly at several points 

133
00:09:06,192 --> 00:09:08,142
during this particular 
ad. 

134
00:09:08,142 --> 00:09:13,590
That's saying that the goal is to protect 
the monument and that's what justifies 

135
00:09:13,590 --> 00:09:18,567
urging the BLM to refuse to allow it. 
So this is going to be a premise marker. 

136
00:09:18,567 --> 00:09:24,082
We've seen in order to protect, in order 
to preserve because we want to protect, 

137
00:09:24,082 --> 00:09:26,369
and so on. 
He keeps repeating that. 

138
00:09:26,369 --> 00:09:30,337
That's not a bad thing. 
Many times when someone's giving an 

139
00:09:30,337 --> 00:09:34,815
argument, they repeat pretty much the 
same words as in other areas, because 

140
00:09:34,815 --> 00:09:38,112
they're giving several arguments for a 
single conclusion. 

141
00:09:38,112 --> 00:09:42,508
We'll actually see how those different 
reasons can fit together in the next 

142
00:09:42,508 --> 00:09:46,962
section of the course, but for now, all 
we're doing is marking the words in an 

143
00:09:46,962 --> 00:09:52,022
order to as a premise marker. 
We've finished four paragraphs. 

144
00:09:52,022 --> 00:09:54,301
All right. 
We're almost done. 

145
00:09:54,301 --> 00:09:56,172
Yeah. 
Yes [LAUGH]. 

146
00:09:56,172 --> 00:10:01,787
Now we're on to paragraph five. 
And it starts, maybe the problem comes 

147
00:10:01,787 --> 00:10:07,240
from giving management responsibility for 
this monument to the BLM. 

148
00:10:07,240 --> 00:10:11,589
What about the word maybe? 
The word maybe is about as clear a case 

149
00:10:11,589 --> 00:10:16,273
as you can get of a guarding term. 
It's saying it might be the case, it 

150
00:10:16,273 --> 00:10:20,824
might not be the case. 
I'm not going to definitely claim that's 

151
00:10:20,824 --> 00:10:25,240
where the problem comes from. 
I'm just suggesting that maybe so if 

152
00:10:25,240 --> 00:10:28,720
somebody comes along and says that not's 
really true, 

153
00:10:28,720 --> 00:10:31,062
I'm going to say, well 
maybe it's true, 

154
00:10:31,062 --> 00:10:35,545
that's all I was claiming, 
and so I'm now able to defend my premise. 

155
00:10:35,545 --> 00:10:36,348
Okay? 
Problem. 

156
00:10:36,348 --> 00:10:39,738
What about problem? 
Got to be E-, right? 

157
00:10:39,738 --> 00:10:43,931
Another clear example, 
because you can't have good things if 

158
00:10:43,931 --> 00:10:48,125
there are problems. 
Sure, you can have problems on math tests 

159
00:10:48,125 --> 00:10:51,969
that are good, 
but that's not the kind of problem we're 

160
00:10:51,969 --> 00:10:55,533
talking about here. 
These kinds of problems are bad. 

161
00:10:55,533 --> 00:11:01,475
And so that word gets marked as E-. 
So, the problem comes from namely, is 

162
00:11:01,475 --> 00:11:08,368
explained by, giving management 
responsibility for this monument to the 

163
00:11:08,368 --> 00:11:12,058
BLM. 
So it comes from, can get marked as a 

164
00:11:12,058 --> 00:11:16,925
premise marker. 
It's giving management responsibility to 

165
00:11:16,925 --> 00:11:21,810
the BLM that explains why there's a 
problem in the first place and that could 

166
00:11:21,810 --> 00:11:25,380
be put in the form of an argument. 
That explanation could. 

167
00:11:25,380 --> 00:11:28,519
Okay. 
So y is giving management responsibility 

168
00:11:28,519 --> 00:11:33,227
to the BLM, create a problem, 
because the next sentence tells you, this 

169
00:11:33,227 --> 00:11:38,550
is the BLM's first national monument. 
This is the first time they've ever done 

170
00:11:38,550 --> 00:11:41,279
this. 
Almost all the other monuments are 

171
00:11:41,279 --> 00:11:44,145
managed by the National Park Service. 
Okay? 

172
00:11:44,145 --> 00:11:47,216
Nothing wrong in itself with being the 
first, 

173
00:11:47,216 --> 00:11:51,788
there always has to be a first, 
so there's nothing evaluative there. 

174
00:11:51,788 --> 00:11:55,631
What about almost all? 
Clearly guarding. Right? 

175
00:11:55,631 --> 00:12:02,657
Because it's not all, it's almost all, so 
the claim is more defensible. 

176
00:12:02,657 --> 00:12:09,071
Almost all the others are managed by the 
National Park Service. 

177
00:12:09,071 --> 00:12:16,096
The Park Services' mission is to protect 
the resources under its care. 

178
00:12:16,096 --> 00:12:22,001
Okay? Protect good resources, good, so 
those both get E+. 

179
00:12:22,001 --> 00:12:25,700
While. 
What about the word while? 

180
00:12:25,700 --> 00:12:30,130
It's not completely clear. 
You could read this as simply setting up 

181
00:12:30,130 --> 00:12:34,891
a contrast between the parks service's 
mission and the bureau's mission, 

182
00:12:34,891 --> 00:12:38,660
but you can also read it as responding to 
an objection. 

183
00:12:38,660 --> 00:12:42,053
Well, doesn't the government protect 
those resources? 

184
00:12:42,053 --> 00:12:47,014
And the answer is, well, the Park Service 
does, but the bureau has a different 

185
00:12:47,014 --> 00:12:49,428
role. 
The bureau has always sought to 

186
00:12:49,428 --> 00:12:54,128
accommodate economic uses. Okay? 
So if you read that while as but and you 

187
00:12:54,128 --> 00:12:56,934
replace it with but, it seems to make 
sense. 

188
00:12:56,934 --> 00:13:02,221
The park services' mission is to protect, 
but the bureau has always, it looks like 

189
00:13:02,221 --> 00:13:06,724
you can replace it with a discounting 
term which means that while is 

190
00:13:06,724 --> 00:13:09,748
functioning here as a discounting term. 
Okay? 

191
00:13:09,748 --> 00:13:14,245
The bureau has always saw it, no guardian 
there. 

192
00:13:14,245 --> 00:13:20,752
It's always sought that, right. 
To accommodate economic uses of those 

193
00:13:20,752 --> 00:13:27,417
resources under its care. 
Even so, starts the next sentence. 

194
00:13:27,417 --> 00:13:33,240
What is even so doing? 
Well, even so is a discounting term, 

195
00:13:33,240 --> 00:13:38,690
because it's discounting an objection. 
The objection is, well they've always 

196
00:13:38,690 --> 00:13:43,850
sought to accommodate those uses. 
Well, then how do you explain the fact 

197
00:13:43,850 --> 00:13:48,210
that they got off to such a good start? 
They seem to be, okay? 

198
00:13:48,210 --> 00:13:52,933
They seem to be, that's a guarding term. 
It's not saying they were. 

199
00:13:52,933 --> 00:13:57,473
It's saying they seem to. 
We're getting off to a good start, good. 

200
00:13:57,473 --> 00:14:01,873
Boy, there's an evaluative plus. 
You can't beat that for a clear 

201
00:14:01,873 --> 00:14:06,971
evaluative plus. To a good start by 
enlisting broad public involvement in 

202
00:14:06,971 --> 00:14:09,904
developing a management plan for the 
area. 

203
00:14:09,904 --> 00:14:15,265
Well, what was good about it? 
They enlisted broad public involvement, 

204
00:14:15,265 --> 00:14:20,241
therefore, it was good. 
Looks like by enlisting could be a 

205
00:14:20,241 --> 00:14:24,083
premise marker. 
The premise is enlist, they enlisted 

206
00:14:24,083 --> 00:14:29,670
broad public involvement, 
therefore, they got off to a good start. 

207
00:14:29,670 --> 00:14:31,980
Yet. 
What's she at? 

208
00:14:33,020 --> 00:14:37,069
Another discounting term. 
The agency's decision to allow drilling 

209
00:14:37,069 --> 00:14:41,616
in the monument completely undercuts this 
process just as its beginning. 

210
00:14:41,616 --> 00:14:46,039
The objection is, so if they got off to a 
good start, what's the problem? 

211
00:14:46,039 --> 00:14:50,380
If they enlisted broad public 
involvement, what's the problem? 

212
00:14:50,380 --> 00:14:55,405
Well, that's the objection and the 
response is, now they've decided to allow 

213
00:14:55,405 --> 00:15:00,498
drilling in the monument and that 
completely undercuts the process that did 

214
00:15:00,498 --> 00:15:02,643
enlist public involvement. 
Right? 

215
00:15:02,643 --> 00:15:07,602
So, the yet is discounting the objection 
that says, there's no problem here, 

216
00:15:07,602 --> 00:15:11,488
they're doing just fine, they got broad 
public involvement. 

217
00:15:11,488 --> 00:15:16,514
They're saying the response to that 
objection is, but now they have not got 

218
00:15:16,514 --> 00:15:20,200
public involvement. 
They're doing it without a complete 

219
00:15:20,200 --> 00:15:24,720
review and so on as mentioned in the 
preceding paragraph. 

220
00:15:24,720 --> 00:15:29,795
The agency's decision to allow oil 
drilling in the monument, completely, no 

221
00:15:29,795 --> 00:15:34,596
guarding, right, completely undercuts. 
When it's that strong a word, like 

222
00:15:34,596 --> 00:15:39,511
completely, you can almost say it, 
I'm assuring you, it's not just partially 

223
00:15:39,511 --> 00:15:43,867
undercutting it's completely 
undercutting. That's a way of making you 

224
00:15:43,867 --> 00:15:48,538
confident that it really does, at least 
partially undercut the process and 

225
00:15:48,538 --> 00:15:53,967
undercuts sounds like something bad. 
I suppose you might not want to market as 

226
00:15:53,967 --> 00:15:58,449
evaluative because you know, you could 
undercut a bad process and that would be 

227
00:15:58,449 --> 00:16:01,822
a good thing. 
So, literally you probably should not 

228
00:16:01,822 --> 00:16:06,375
mark that as evaluative, 
but it's clear what Robert Redford thinks 

229
00:16:06,375 --> 00:16:09,480
about undercutting this process. 
And now, just. 

230
00:16:09,480 --> 00:16:12,231
Just stands for justice, doesn't it? 
No. 

231
00:16:12,231 --> 00:16:15,706
Remember from the very first word of this 
op-ed, 

232
00:16:15,706 --> 00:16:19,978
just is nothing here. 
It means, at the same time when it was 

233
00:16:19,978 --> 00:16:23,598
beginning. 
It's not an evaluative term, even though 

234
00:16:23,598 --> 00:16:28,232
just sometimes means something about 
being just or fair or good. 

235
00:16:28,232 --> 00:16:33,445
Here, it doesn't mean that at all. 
So, we're back to the very word that we 

236
00:16:33,445 --> 00:16:37,625
began this op-ed with, and so that seems 
like a good place to stop. 

237
00:16:37,625 --> 00:16:41,434
I'll stop marking here. 
There are other things you could mark. 

238
00:16:41,434 --> 00:16:45,679
There are other things to discuss. 
These paragraphs, these op eds, are 

239
00:16:45,679 --> 00:16:50,674
always extremely complex and interesting 
to try to get the detail straight, but 

240
00:16:50,674 --> 00:16:54,420
I'll give you a chance to look at the 
next three paragraphs. 

241
00:16:54,420 --> 00:16:58,228
They're all pretty short. 
And look at those paragraphs and see if 

242
00:16:58,228 --> 00:17:03,098
you can do a close analysis on those, 
because as I've emphasized several times, 

243
00:17:03,098 --> 00:17:06,648
the best. 
Indeed the only way to learn close 

244
00:17:06,648 --> 00:17:10,760
analysis is to practice, practice, 
practice, practice, practice.