Welcome back. Now you've done paragraph three
yourselves and we're going to go on to paragraph four.
Might seem like were doing an awful lot of this,
but remember, the only way to learn close analysis is to practice, practice,
practice, practice, practice over and over again on as many passages as you can
find. So we're going to spend one more lecture
going though paragraphs four and five of Robert Redford's piece in the Washington
Post from 1997. The title was, A Piece of God's
Handiwork.. In paragraph 4 starts, sounds like
Washington double-speak to me. Well, what is it that sounds like
Washington double-speak to him. It's the sentence at the end of the
previous paragraph that you analyzed and, that's the claim that they issued the
permit without a full review using an abbreviated review and they didn't even
look at the leases on other federal lands.
So, he's saying that sounds like the kind of thing Washington does when they
double-speak. Double-speak is obviously a metaphor.
Right? It's a metaphor for saying one thing to
one person, another thing to another person or sometimes, saying one thing
that seems to mean one thing when what they really mean is another thing.
But however you interpret the metaphor of double-speak, it's not good.
So we can indicate that double-speaking is a negative evaluation and it's a
metaphor, but clearly negative in its meeting.
You wouldn't say someone who's speaking properly is double-speak.
Notice however, that he has this phrase sounds like and it sounds like it, to
him, what sounds like doing.
Well, he's not saying that it is Washington double-speak.
So he's guarding it. He's weakening the claim.
He's not saying it is. He's saying it sounds like and so that
can be labeled as a guarding term. Okay.
So he's guarded that claim, but now he's going to go on and argue against the plan
that Washington was using. I've spent considerable time on these
extraordinary lands for years. I've spent for years.
Let's just circle that whole thing to indicate that whole phrase, because it's
just all doing the same thing. What's it doing?
It's assuring you. You say, because I have spent so much
time on these lands, I spent so many years on them.
You can trust me to know what's going on. I've got the evidence.
Notice, like other assuring terms, it's not giving you the evidence.
It's saying, you ought to trust me, because I've got the evidence.
I've had the experience. So it's a perfect example of assuring,
because it's saying that he has reasons without actually giving the reasons and
that's why you can't question his reasons because you haven't spent considerable
time on those extraordinary lands. And, of course, he follows that up with
another assuring term. He says, and I know.
When you say, I know, that's an assuring term,
a mental assuring term, because it's describing the mental state as being one
of knowledge. Knowledge implies truth, and to say I
know it is to imply that it's true to ensure you that it's true.
Okay? But what does he know?
He knows that an oil rig in their midst, would have a major impact.
And what about that? A major impact.
Okay? Now he's clearly saying it would be a bad
impact, but does he come out and say it's bad?
No, he just says it's major.
Okay? So it's not an evaluative term that would
be labeled as nothing if nothing is an option.
So, he's clearly suggesting that it's bad, but he's not saying it,
so it shouldn't be marked as an evaluative term, okay?
Next, what's more. Well, what's more is kind of a
conjunction, but what came before this was an argument
that it would have a major impact based on his assurance.
And so when he says, once more, he's suggesting that what's going to come next
is yet another argument for why we shouldn't have these, these permits
issued. He's going to tell you other bad things
about them. So that can be a premise marker, because
what comes after it is the premise. They want to drill to find oil.
Well, we can say, to find oil, it's in order to find oil, that is going to
explain why they want to drill. It's a theleological explanation as we
saw in an earlier lecture and so that is going to be a reason marker, because
their desire to find oil is what explains their desire to want to drill.
Okay? Inevitably.
What's that? Assuring.
It's assuring you that it's obviously true.
There's no way around it. It is inevitable.
What's inevitable? More rigs,
more roads, new pipelines,
toxic waste, and bright lights would follow to get the
oil out. Okay?
He's assuring you that all of those things are going to happen.
The previous argument, before the what's more, was simply an oil rig.
Notice it's just an oil rig, one oil rig up there in that sentence,
but now we've got more rigs, more roads, new pipelines.
So if an oil rig has a major impact, all of this other stuff's going to a lot more
of an impact. That's the point of the what's more.
He's adding additional reasons why the permits should not be issued.
Okay? And they would follow, that means it's going to follow what?
In time. It's just temporal.
It's not saying anything more than it's going to follow at a later time, but
they're going to follow to get the oil out.
That explains why they would follow, because, right, you would need them in
order to get the oil out. So that's going to be an argument marker
itself. Is it a reason marker or is it a
conclusion marker? Well,
the conclusion is that all that's going to follow.
Right? And the premise is that it's needed in
order to get the oil out. So this is going to be a premise marker.
And the conclusion is that you get all that stuff,
the pipelines, the roads, the waste and so on.
Okay? So those are his reasons against giving a
permit and then he says, the BLM couldn't see this.
Okay? He just states it as a fact.
But, what's the but doing there?
Remember, what kind of word a but is. But is a discounting term.
He's answering an objection. The objection is, well, you say all that
would follow, but the BLM would disagree with you and they looked at it very
carefully and they're an authority or an expert.
So, the answer to that objection is the US
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency did see
this. Notice that what comes after the but is
more important than what came before it. What he's doing is saying that there's a
contrast between what the BLM couldn't see and what the US Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Environmental Protective Agency did see,
but in addition to the contrast between those two, he's also saying it's more
important that the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection
Agency did see it. Okay? So what comes after the but is
taken to be more important. And what did they see?
Both of these agencies recognized. Recognized implies, you can't recognize
things that aren't true you know, if you see somebody and you say, I recognize my
sister and it wasn't your sister, you didn't really recognize them.
So to say you recognize is to assure people that it's really true.
The devastating. Now devastating can't be good.
so that's E-, effects of extensive oil drilling.
Extensive, is that bad? No,
extensive oil drilling is good in the right places.
It gives us the kind of energy we need to be able to accomplish the goals that we
want. Maybe you wish you didn't need extensive
oil drilling, but, if you need it, then it's good when
it's done in the right place. And that drilling would have a
devastating effects on this area. And then those two agencies urge the BLM
to refuse to allow it. Okay.
Why? In order to protect the monument.
And again, we've seen this kind of argument repeatedly at several points
during this particular ad.
That's saying that the goal is to protect the monument and that's what justifies
urging the BLM to refuse to allow it. So this is going to be a premise marker.
We've seen in order to protect, in order to preserve because we want to protect,
and so on. He keeps repeating that.
That's not a bad thing. Many times when someone's giving an
argument, they repeat pretty much the same words as in other areas, because
they're giving several arguments for a single conclusion.
We'll actually see how those different reasons can fit together in the next
section of the course, but for now, all we're doing is marking the words in an
order to as a premise marker. We've finished four paragraphs.
All right. We're almost done.
Yeah. Yes [LAUGH].
Now we're on to paragraph five. And it starts, maybe the problem comes
from giving management responsibility for this monument to the BLM.
What about the word maybe? The word maybe is about as clear a case
as you can get of a guarding term. It's saying it might be the case, it
might not be the case. I'm not going to definitely claim that's
where the problem comes from. I'm just suggesting that maybe so if
somebody comes along and says that not's really true,
I'm going to say, well maybe it's true,
that's all I was claiming, and so I'm now able to defend my premise.
Okay? Problem.
What about problem? Got to be E-, right?
Another clear example, because you can't have good things if
there are problems. Sure, you can have problems on math tests
that are good, but that's not the kind of problem we're
talking about here. These kinds of problems are bad.
And so that word gets marked as E-. So, the problem comes from namely, is
explained by, giving management responsibility for this monument to the
BLM. So it comes from, can get marked as a
premise marker. It's giving management responsibility to
the BLM that explains why there's a problem in the first place and that could
be put in the form of an argument. That explanation could.
Okay. So y is giving management responsibility
to the BLM, create a problem, because the next sentence tells you, this
is the BLM's first national monument. This is the first time they've ever done
this. Almost all the other monuments are
managed by the National Park Service. Okay?
Nothing wrong in itself with being the first,
there always has to be a first, so there's nothing evaluative there.
What about almost all? Clearly guarding. Right?
Because it's not all, it's almost all, so the claim is more defensible.
Almost all the others are managed by the National Park Service.
The Park Services' mission is to protect the resources under its care.
Okay? Protect good resources, good, so those both get E+.
While. What about the word while?
It's not completely clear. You could read this as simply setting up
a contrast between the parks service's mission and the bureau's mission,
but you can also read it as responding to an objection.
Well, doesn't the government protect those resources?
And the answer is, well, the Park Service does, but the bureau has a different
role. The bureau has always sought to
accommodate economic uses. Okay? So if you read that while as but and you
replace it with but, it seems to make sense.
The park services' mission is to protect, but the bureau has always, it looks like
you can replace it with a discounting term which means that while is
functioning here as a discounting term. Okay?
The bureau has always saw it, no guardian there.
It's always sought that, right. To accommodate economic uses of those
resources under its care. Even so, starts the next sentence.
What is even so doing? Well, even so is a discounting term,
because it's discounting an objection. The objection is, well they've always
sought to accommodate those uses. Well, then how do you explain the fact
that they got off to such a good start? They seem to be, okay?
They seem to be, that's a guarding term. It's not saying they were.
It's saying they seem to. We're getting off to a good start, good.
Boy, there's an evaluative plus. You can't beat that for a clear
evaluative plus. To a good start by enlisting broad public involvement in
developing a management plan for the area.
Well, what was good about it? They enlisted broad public involvement,
therefore, it was good. Looks like by enlisting could be a
premise marker. The premise is enlist, they enlisted
broad public involvement, therefore, they got off to a good start.
Yet. What's she at?
Another discounting term. The agency's decision to allow drilling
in the monument completely undercuts this process just as its beginning.
The objection is, so if they got off to a good start, what's the problem?
If they enlisted broad public involvement, what's the problem?
Well, that's the objection and the response is, now they've decided to allow
drilling in the monument and that completely undercuts the process that did
enlist public involvement. Right?
So, the yet is discounting the objection that says, there's no problem here,
they're doing just fine, they got broad public involvement.
They're saying the response to that objection is, but now they have not got
public involvement. They're doing it without a complete
review and so on as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The agency's decision to allow oil drilling in the monument, completely, no
guarding, right, completely undercuts. When it's that strong a word, like
completely, you can almost say it, I'm assuring you, it's not just partially
undercutting it's completely undercutting. That's a way of making you
confident that it really does, at least partially undercut the process and
undercuts sounds like something bad. I suppose you might not want to market as
evaluative because you know, you could undercut a bad process and that would be
a good thing. So, literally you probably should not
mark that as evaluative, but it's clear what Robert Redford thinks
about undercutting this process. And now, just.
Just stands for justice, doesn't it? No.
Remember from the very first word of this op-ed,
just is nothing here. It means, at the same time when it was
beginning. It's not an evaluative term, even though
just sometimes means something about being just or fair or good.
Here, it doesn't mean that at all. So, we're back to the very word that we
began this op-ed with, and so that seems like a good place to stop.
I'll stop marking here. There are other things you could mark.
There are other things to discuss. These paragraphs, these op eds, are
always extremely complex and interesting to try to get the detail straight, but
I'll give you a chance to look at the next three paragraphs.
They're all pretty short. And look at those paragraphs and see if
you can do a close analysis on those, because as I've emphasized several times,
the best. Indeed the only way to learn close
analysis is to practice, practice, practice, practice, practice.