1 00:00:02,440 --> 00:00:09,014 Now, we've really done it. We're finished with reconstruction. 2 00:00:09,014 --> 00:00:12,566 Hooray. But we want to go through it one more 3 00:00:12,566 --> 00:00:17,920 time in a detailed example to show how that all the different stages fit 4 00:00:17,920 --> 00:00:20,832 together. And which example are we going to pick? 5 00:00:20,832 --> 00:00:24,888 Well, if you've been in the course this far, I bet you can guess. 6 00:00:24,888 --> 00:00:28,681 Robert Redford again. We're going to look at paragraph three of 7 00:00:28,681 --> 00:00:33,876 his article and go through reconstruction to show that reconstruction gives you an 8 00:00:33,876 --> 00:00:38,446 even deeper understanding than when we first went through it using close 9 00:00:38,446 --> 00:00:41,450 analysis alone. Reconstruction begins with close 10 00:00:41,450 --> 00:00:44,204 analysis. So, the first thing I'll do is read 11 00:00:44,204 --> 00:00:48,711 through the passage and mark the important words in order to do a close 12 00:00:48,711 --> 00:00:52,780 analysis of Redford's paragraph. The BLM says it's hands are tied. 13 00:00:52,780 --> 00:00:55,910 Remember, the BLM is the Bureau of Land Management. 14 00:00:55,910 --> 00:01:02,620 Why? Because, because it's a premise marker. 15 00:01:03,720 --> 00:01:09,930 It's indicating that the sentence after is a premise for the conclusion that the 16 00:01:09,930 --> 00:01:15,187 BLM's hands are tied. Because these lands were set aside 17 00:01:15,187 --> 00:01:21,208 subject to valid existing rights, you could say that valid and rights are 18 00:01:21,208 --> 00:01:27,320 evaluative terms but that's not going to matter to our analysis here. 19 00:01:27,320 --> 00:01:32,448 And Conoco has a lease that gives it the right to drill. 20 00:01:32,448 --> 00:01:38,720 And notice we've got a tricky argument marker here, gives it. 21 00:01:38,720 --> 00:01:44,994 Because the point of that sentence is that it's the lease that explains why it 22 00:01:44,994 --> 00:01:51,110 has the right to drill or justifies the claim that it does have the right to 23 00:01:51,110 --> 00:01:57,305 drill, so gives it is an argument marker and in particular, it has the right to 24 00:01:57,305 --> 00:02:01,435 drill is the conclusion, so it's a conclusion marker. 25 00:02:01,435 --> 00:02:06,280 Sure, Conoco has a lease. Sure is going to be an assuring term, 26 00:02:06,280 --> 00:02:13,900 more then one, in fact. In fact is another assuring term but, 27 00:02:13,900 --> 00:02:20,242 but it's going to be a discounting term, indicating that there is an objection 28 00:02:20,242 --> 00:02:25,156 being responded to. Those leases were originally issued 29 00:02:25,156 --> 00:02:30,070 without sufficient environmental study or public input. 30 00:02:30,070 --> 00:02:35,322 And you could think that originally, it's a guarding term because it's not saying 31 00:02:35,322 --> 00:02:40,315 that they are never was sufficient environmental input that is environmental 32 00:02:40,315 --> 00:02:43,946 study or public input. It might have come later just not 33 00:02:43,946 --> 00:02:49,004 originally, but again, that's not going to play any part in the argument itself. 34 00:02:49,004 --> 00:02:53,090 So, it could be a guarding term but you can mark it if you want. 35 00:02:53,090 --> 00:02:58,103 But as a result, the first three words of the next sentence, that's clearly an 36 00:02:58,103 --> 00:03:01,619 argument marker. And it's indicating that the sentence 37 00:03:01,619 --> 00:03:05,070 after it is a conclusion. So, it's a conclusion marker. 38 00:03:05,070 --> 00:03:08,360 None of them conveyed a valid right to drill. 39 00:03:08,360 --> 00:03:13,366 What's more, now, we're indicating there's a separate 40 00:03:13,366 --> 00:03:16,433 argument. There's a new premise coming, another 41 00:03:16,433 --> 00:03:21,816 reason for the same conclusion. In deciding to issue a permit to drill 42 00:03:21,816 --> 00:03:28,117 right now, the BLM did not conduct a full analysis of the environmental impacts of 43 00:03:28,117 --> 00:03:35,560 drilling in these incomparable lands, but discounting, right? 44 00:03:35,560 --> 00:03:42,332 Instead, determined that there would be no significant environmental harm on the 45 00:03:42,332 --> 00:03:48,258 basis of, this is telling you, how they reach that determination, it was an 46 00:03:48,258 --> 00:03:52,914 abbreviated review. They had an abbreviated review that 47 00:03:52,914 --> 00:03:56,554 justified or explained their determination. 48 00:03:56,554 --> 00:04:01,606 So, that's a premise marker. It didn't even look even as a tricky one 49 00:04:01,606 --> 00:04:06,196 it's discounting an objection. It's saying well, they looked a little 50 00:04:06,196 --> 00:04:11,257 bit but they didn't look at this. It discounted the objection that they did 51 00:04:11,257 --> 00:04:16,171 lookups, at least some. They didn't even look at drilling on the 52 00:04:16,171 --> 00:04:18,131 other federal leases, okay? 53 00:04:18,131 --> 00:04:23,861 Sounds like clearly a guarding term. It's not saying it is, but it sounds like 54 00:04:23,861 --> 00:04:27,179 Washington doublespeak. Doublespeak is bad. 55 00:04:27,179 --> 00:04:32,532 You don't want to doublespeak to me. And maybe, to me, is another guarding 56 00:04:32,532 --> 00:04:37,508 term in the sense that it sounds that way to me, but not to others. 57 00:04:37,508 --> 00:04:40,600 So, we could mark that as a guard as well. 58 00:04:40,600 --> 00:04:45,752 So, we have finished stage one of reconstructing this argument. 59 00:04:45,752 --> 00:04:51,643 We've done a close analysis. The next stage is to get rid of all the 60 00:04:51,643 --> 00:04:56,420 excess verbiage. So, we'll start a new screen and do that. 61 00:04:56,420 --> 00:05:00,070 The BLM saysm its hands are tied. Well, 62 00:05:00,070 --> 00:05:05,101 the claim is that its hands are tied, so we can get rid of the fact that the BLM 63 00:05:05,101 --> 00:05:06,023 says that. Why? 64 00:05:06,023 --> 00:05:11,297 Because we can get rid of those words because they're going to get replaced by 65 00:05:11,297 --> 00:05:16,279 a dot pyramid in standard form. These lands were set aside subject to 66 00:05:16,279 --> 00:05:20,968 valid existing rights, good. And the Conoco has a lease that gives it 67 00:05:20,968 --> 00:05:25,364 the right to drill, good. And we can get rid of, because we're 68 00:05:25,364 --> 00:05:29,686 going to have two separate premises there that gives it, right? 69 00:05:29,686 --> 00:05:34,595 Well, that's going to be an argument marker as we saw that's going to get 70 00:05:34,595 --> 00:05:39,723 replaced by another dot pyramid. Sure, Conoco has a lease, more than one, 71 00:05:39,723 --> 00:05:42,843 in fact. Now, noticed there, Redford is admitting 72 00:05:42,843 --> 00:05:48,022 what his opponent claims, but that's not going to be part of his argument, he's 73 00:05:48,022 --> 00:05:52,072 just saying, I recognize that. His arguments are going be based on 74 00:05:52,072 --> 00:05:57,185 different clients so we can get rid of sure, Conoco has a lease, more than one, 75 00:05:57,185 --> 00:06:01,700 in fact, and the but tells you that he's just answering an objection. 76 00:06:01,700 --> 00:06:06,666 These leases were originally issued without sufficient environmental study or 77 00:06:06,666 --> 00:06:09,595 input, that's going to be an important premise. 78 00:06:09,595 --> 00:06:14,307 As a result, we saw that was an argument marker going to be replaced by a dot 79 00:06:14,307 --> 00:06:18,318 pyramid like the others. None of them conveyed a valid right to 80 00:06:18,318 --> 00:06:19,465 drill. What's more, 81 00:06:19,465 --> 00:06:23,986 another argument marker, so it's going to get replaced by a dot pyramid. 82 00:06:23,986 --> 00:06:28,697 In deciding to issue a permit to drill now, the BLM did not conduct a full 83 00:06:28,697 --> 00:06:32,200 analysis, blah, blah, blah. But instead, that's going to be 84 00:06:32,200 --> 00:06:36,955 discounting terms, and that's going to be important for understanding what the 85 00:06:36,955 --> 00:06:40,696 sentences are doing. But it's not going to get repeated in the 86 00:06:40,696 --> 00:06:45,388 premise when we put it in standard form. They determined there would be no 87 00:06:45,388 --> 00:06:50,398 significant impact on the basis of an abbreviated review, that didn't even look 88 00:06:50,398 --> 00:06:55,407 at drilling on the other federal leases. The next step is to take all the parts 89 00:06:55,407 --> 00:06:59,465 that weren't crossed out. They're going to be the explicit premises 90 00:06:59,465 --> 00:07:03,460 and conclusion in the argument, and put them into standard form. 91 00:07:03,460 --> 00:07:09,661 If you think about this paragraph, there are really two arguments, because at the 92 00:07:09,661 --> 00:07:15,397 start, what Redford tries to do is to state what the BLM's argument was to 93 00:07:15,397 --> 00:07:20,979 begin with, and then he gives his own argument against what the BLM says. 94 00:07:20,979 --> 00:07:25,320 So, BLM's argument can be put in standard form like this. 95 00:07:25,320 --> 00:07:30,539 First premise, Conoco has a list that gives it the right to drill. Second 96 00:07:30,539 --> 00:07:36,232 premise, these lands were set aside subject to valid existing rights, and 97 00:07:36,232 --> 00:07:42,900 those two premises lead to the conclusion that the BLM's hands were tied. 98 00:07:42,900 --> 00:07:47,319 Now, that's the BLM's argument that Redford is arguing against. 99 00:07:47,319 --> 00:07:52,879 Redford's own argument on the other side, starts with the premise, those leases 100 00:07:52,879 --> 00:07:58,440 were originally issued without sufficient environmental study or public input. 101 00:07:58,440 --> 00:08:02,324 Second premise, in deciding to issue a permit to drill 102 00:08:02,324 --> 00:08:07,792 now, the BLM did not conduct a full analysis of the environmental impacts of 103 00:08:07,792 --> 00:08:13,403 drilling on these incomparable lands. But instead, determined there would be no 104 00:08:13,403 --> 00:08:18,727 significant environmental harm on the basis of an abbreviated review that 105 00:08:18,727 --> 00:08:22,900 didn't even look at drilling on other federal leases. 106 00:08:22,900 --> 00:08:30,107 Those two premises lead to the conclusion that none of these convey the valid right 107 00:08:30,107 --> 00:08:34,361 to drill. And then, there's another premise, these 108 00:08:34,361 --> 00:08:40,404 lands were set aside subject to valid existing rights and that's suppose to 109 00:08:40,404 --> 00:08:44,960 lead the conclusion, this is Washington doublespeak. 110 00:08:44,960 --> 00:08:49,499 Well, we'll have to see what all that means when we clarify but that's 111 00:08:49,499 --> 00:08:53,909 basically the standard form. It might be a good idea to double check 112 00:08:53,909 --> 00:08:59,033 because you want to make sure that every sentence that you didn't cross out is 113 00:08:59,033 --> 00:09:04,026 somewhere there in the standard form. So, let's look back at the passage where 114 00:09:04,026 --> 00:09:09,280 we crossed out the excess and make sure everything is there in the standard form. 115 00:09:11,400 --> 00:09:12,864 Okay. It's all there. 116 00:09:12,864 --> 00:09:16,159 Good. Well, the next stage is to sharpen edges. 117 00:09:16,159 --> 00:09:22,016 And that means clarify the premises and break them up where doing so would help 118 00:09:22,016 --> 00:09:27,434 understand what they are really claiming. So, let's look first at the BLM's 119 00:09:27,434 --> 00:09:30,802 argument. Which simply says, Conoco has a lease. 120 00:09:30,802 --> 00:09:34,536 These lands were set aside subject to valid rights, 121 00:09:34,536 --> 00:09:39,771 therefore, its hands are tied. We're going to clarify, first of all, the 122 00:09:39,771 --> 00:09:42,261 conclusion. Its hands are tied. 123 00:09:42,261 --> 00:09:46,839 What does that mean? Well, basically, the BLM is claiming, I 124 00:09:46,839 --> 00:09:51,497 can't do anything about Conoco. You know, my hands are tied. 125 00:09:51,497 --> 00:09:55,594 Don't hold me responsible, there's nothing I can do, 126 00:09:55,594 --> 00:09:58,164 okay? They are offering, an excuse. 127 00:09:58,164 --> 00:10:02,365 Next, premise two. These lands were set aside subject to 128 00:10:02,365 --> 00:10:06,244 valid existing rights. Well, what does set aside means? 129 00:10:06,244 --> 00:10:09,826 It means, that you're not allowed to drill there. 130 00:10:09,826 --> 00:10:15,645 Subject to valid, existing rights means that you are allowed to drill there if 131 00:10:15,645 --> 00:10:20,793 you've got a valid existing right. So, this premise can be restated as 132 00:10:20,793 --> 00:10:26,538 saying that if Conaco does have a valid, existing right to drill, then the BLM 133 00:10:26,538 --> 00:10:31,313 must allow Conaco to drill? Okay, what about breaking up premises? 134 00:10:31,313 --> 00:10:35,422 What about premise one? Well, that's one that I think we're going 135 00:10:35,422 --> 00:10:39,172 to have to break up. because it says, that Conoco has a lease 136 00:10:39,172 --> 00:10:43,930 that gives it the right to drill. And gives it, we already marked as an 137 00:10:43,930 --> 00:10:49,435 argument marker, which suggests that the fact that Conoco has a lease is supposed 138 00:10:49,435 --> 00:10:54,532 to be a reason why it has a right to drill. So, there's an argument implicit 139 00:10:54,532 --> 00:10:58,752 in that one sentence. And that means that we can take this 140 00:10:58,752 --> 00:11:04,714 whole argument and restate it something like this. Conoco has a lease, therefore, 141 00:11:04,714 --> 00:11:09,988 Conoco has a valid right to drill. If Conoco has a valid right to drill, 142 00:11:09,988 --> 00:11:15,762 then the BLM must allow Conoco to drill. Therefore, the BLM must allow Conoco to 143 00:11:15,762 --> 00:11:19,066 drill. That is supposed to be the central force 144 00:11:19,066 --> 00:11:24,607 of the explicit premises and conclusions in the first part, where the BLM gives 145 00:11:24,607 --> 00:11:28,177 its argument. The next part is Redford's response to 146 00:11:28,177 --> 00:11:31,628 this argument. Let's start with Redford's conclusion. 147 00:11:31,628 --> 00:11:35,941 What is he trying to show? He's trying to show the opposite of the 148 00:11:35,941 --> 00:11:39,590 BLM's argument. They're trying to show that their hands 149 00:11:39,590 --> 00:11:43,505 are tied, that is that they can't stop Conoco from drilling. 150 00:11:43,505 --> 00:11:48,681 So, Redford wants to show that they can stop Conoco from drilling, or even that 151 00:11:48,681 --> 00:11:53,724 they must stop Conoco from drilling. So, that's the conclusion he's trying to 152 00:11:53,724 --> 00:11:56,710 reach. What he says is, sounds like Washington 153 00:11:56,710 --> 00:12:00,293 doublespeak to me. Well, that because he's saying that 154 00:12:00,293 --> 00:12:05,336 people in Washington always say their hands are tied and can't get anything 155 00:12:05,336 --> 00:12:10,379 done and he's going to argue that their hands aren't tied, because they can and 156 00:12:10,379 --> 00:12:15,090 must stop Conoco from drilling. So, we can replace the conclusion simply 157 00:12:15,090 --> 00:12:18,740 with the claim that the BLM must stop Conoco from drilling. 158 00:12:18,740 --> 00:12:23,216 Now, we know how the argument ends. So, let's take those premises and 159 00:12:23,216 --> 00:12:28,828 conclusion and number them pretty high so that we can leave some room for the other 160 00:12:28,828 --> 00:12:34,533 premises that come before them. The next thing we need to do is to get an 161 00:12:34,533 --> 00:12:41,367 argument for that central premise, Conoco does not have any valid right to drill. 162 00:12:41,367 --> 00:12:46,592 No, here's what Redford said. That the leases were originally issued 163 00:12:46,592 --> 00:12:50,543 without sufficient environmental study or public input. 164 00:12:50,543 --> 00:12:56,076 And in deciding to issue a permit now, the BLM didn't conduct a full analysis. 165 00:12:56,076 --> 00:12:59,525 Notice that there are two parts to these claims. 166 00:12:59,525 --> 00:13:03,692 One is about the leases and the other is about the permit. 167 00:13:03,692 --> 00:13:09,591 Because in order to have a valid right to drill, Conoco needs to have a lease and a 168 00:13:09,591 --> 00:13:12,683 permit. Redford argues that there are problems 169 00:13:12,683 --> 00:13:17,456 with both the lease and the permit. But the considerations are a little 170 00:13:17,456 --> 00:13:22,431 different so we need to separate those two parts into different arguments. 171 00:13:22,431 --> 00:13:25,860 The first part of his argument concerns the leases. 172 00:13:25,860 --> 00:13:31,140 He says, that the leases were originally issued without sufficient environmental 173 00:13:31,140 --> 00:13:36,223 study or public input. Therefore, none of the leases conveyed a valid right to 174 00:13:36,223 --> 00:13:39,524 drill. Then, the second part has to do with the 175 00:13:39,524 --> 00:13:42,552 permit. In deciding the issue of permit to drill 176 00:13:42,552 --> 00:13:47,222 now, the BLM did not conduct a full analysis, therefore, none of the permits 177 00:13:47,222 --> 00:13:51,828 conveyed a valid right to drill. And the idea of the argument is going to 178 00:13:51,828 --> 00:13:56,687 be that the leases don't give them a right and the permits don't give them a 179 00:13:56,687 --> 00:13:58,959 right, so they ain't go no right. Wow. 180 00:13:58,959 --> 00:14:03,944 But that premise in the argument to show that the permit is not valid is a long 181 00:14:03,944 --> 00:14:07,920 premise, with lots of different parts. So, we need to break it up. 182 00:14:07,920 --> 00:14:14,187 And we can figure out how to break it up by looking at the argument markers in the 183 00:14:14,187 --> 00:14:18,643 part of the passage that in effect constitute that premise. 184 00:14:18,643 --> 00:14:22,796 We know that there's a premise marker at the beginning. 185 00:14:22,796 --> 00:14:26,602 Once more, a discounting term, but on the basis of, 186 00:14:26,602 --> 00:14:31,689 is an argument marker. Even is a discounting term and that breaks that 187 00:14:31,689 --> 00:14:37,357 long premise into parts so we can break them into A, the BLM did not conduct a 188 00:14:37,357 --> 00:14:42,808 full analysis of the environmental impacts of drilling on these incomparable 189 00:14:42,808 --> 00:14:47,459 lands, no full analysis. B, the BLM determined that there would be 190 00:14:47,459 --> 00:14:52,404 no significant environmental harm, okay? C, the BLM conductive only in 191 00:14:52,404 --> 00:14:55,496 abbreviated review of the environmental harm. 192 00:14:55,496 --> 00:15:00,239 And D, the BLM didn't even look at drilling on other federal leases. 193 00:15:00,239 --> 00:15:05,599 What about B, the BLM determined there would be no significant environmental 194 00:15:05,599 --> 00:15:08,830 impact. Well, that's what Redford opposes so 195 00:15:08,830 --> 00:15:11,647 that's not going to be part of his argument. 196 00:15:11,647 --> 00:15:14,603 How do the other three claims fit together. 197 00:15:14,603 --> 00:15:18,933 Which is a reason for which? And now, we're into a different step, 198 00:15:18,933 --> 00:15:24,056 namely, organize the parts. And it's not completely clear but it 199 00:15:24,056 --> 00:15:27,964 seems like Redford has two separate complaints. 200 00:15:27,964 --> 00:15:33,951 One is that the BLM did not look sufficiently hard at the environmental 201 00:15:33,951 --> 00:15:37,860 impact at this particular site, the [UNKNOWN]. 202 00:15:37,860 --> 00:15:43,017 The other complaint is that they didn't do a comparative analysis and look at 203 00:15:43,017 --> 00:15:48,240 other leases on other federal lands to see, you know, what happens when drilling 204 00:15:48,240 --> 00:15:53,265 was allowed there and when permits were issued in those other circumstances. 205 00:15:53,265 --> 00:15:58,290 So, one claim is about this particular site and the other claim is a lack of 206 00:15:58,290 --> 00:16:03,015 comparison to other sites. These two points become even clearer in 207 00:16:03,015 --> 00:16:06,245 the next paragraph, if you'll remember that. 208 00:16:06,245 --> 00:16:11,654 There he said, first, I've spent considerable time in these extraordinary 209 00:16:11,654 --> 00:16:17,364 lands for years and I know that an oil rig in their midst would have a major 210 00:16:17,364 --> 00:16:20,348 impact. So there, he's talking about the impact 211 00:16:20,348 --> 00:16:23,500 on this particular site, on these particular lands. 212 00:16:23,500 --> 00:16:28,881 Right after that, he says, what's more, indicating it's a separate argument, 213 00:16:28,881 --> 00:16:32,788 what's more, Conoco wants to drill a well to find oil. 214 00:16:32,788 --> 00:16:38,391 Inevitably, more rigs, more roads, new pipelines, toxic waste, and bright lights 215 00:16:38,391 --> 00:16:43,331 would follow to get the oil out. There, he seems to be suggesting, if you 216 00:16:43,331 --> 00:16:48,097 just looked over at the other leases, you'd find that when you allow oil 217 00:16:48,097 --> 00:16:52,400 drilling, a lot more happens than you ever expected to begin with. 218 00:16:52,400 --> 00:16:56,832 I'm, of course, not agreeing with this. It might of be true or it might not. 219 00:16:56,832 --> 00:17:01,811 My point is that this is a structure of Redford's own claims that make up his own 220 00:17:01,811 --> 00:17:04,787 argument. So, there are two separate ways in which 221 00:17:04,787 --> 00:17:09,098 the review failed to be false. The first is that the BLM conducted only 222 00:17:09,098 --> 00:17:13,652 an abbreviated review in the sense that they didn't look carefully at this 223 00:17:13,652 --> 00:17:17,356 particular site itself. And the second is that the BLM didn't 224 00:17:17,356 --> 00:17:22,017 look at drilling in other places. Therefore, the conclusion is the BLM did 225 00:17:22,017 --> 00:17:26,469 not conduct a full analysis. That seems to be what Redford is saying 226 00:17:26,469 --> 00:17:30,722 in this particular sentence. Now, let's bring it all together and 227 00:17:30,722 --> 00:17:36,315 clean it up a little bit in the process. One, all of Conoco's leases were 228 00:17:36,315 --> 00:17:41,505 originally issued without sufficient environmental study or public input 229 00:17:41,505 --> 00:17:46,126 that's supposed to support. Two, none of Conoco's leases give it a 230 00:17:46,126 --> 00:17:50,793 valid right to drill. Then three, the BLM conducted an 231 00:17:50,793 --> 00:17:55,148 abbreviated review. They didn't look as careful as they 232 00:17:55,148 --> 00:18:00,295 should have at the lands. Four, the BLM didn't look at drilling on 233 00:18:00,295 --> 00:18:04,967 lands under the other federal leases of the comparative claim. 234 00:18:04,967 --> 00:18:11,460 And those two are suppose to support five the BLM did not conduct a full analysis. 235 00:18:11,460 --> 00:18:17,637 And what that's suppose to show is that six, its permit did not give Conoco a 236 00:18:17,637 --> 00:18:23,511 valid right to drill. They are four, seven which is supposed to 237 00:18:23,511 --> 00:18:28,005 follow from two and six. Conoco does not have a valid right to 238 00:18:28,005 --> 00:18:32,385 drill. A, if Conoco does not have a valid right 239 00:18:32,385 --> 00:18:36,487 to drill, then the BLM must not allow Conoco to drill. 240 00:18:36,487 --> 00:18:40,280 Therefore, the BLM must not allow Conoco to drill. 241 00:18:41,460 --> 00:18:43,201 Make sense? Seem fair? 242 00:18:43,201 --> 00:18:47,347 I hope so. I think it's a pretty good reconstruction 243 00:18:47,347 --> 00:18:52,986 of what Redford had in mind. However, as you probably noticed already, 244 00:18:52,986 --> 00:18:59,702 these arguments are not valid yet, so we need to go to the next stage and fill in 245 00:18:59,702 --> 00:19:05,756 the gaps with surpressed premises. Let's do that now, let's start with the 246 00:19:05,756 --> 00:19:11,440 BLM's argument. Is the argument from one to two valid? 247 00:19:11,440 --> 00:19:16,936 Is it possible that Conoco has a lease but it doesn't have a valid right to 248 00:19:16,936 --> 00:19:18,055 drill? Well, sure. 249 00:19:18,055 --> 00:19:23,060 And so, that argument is not valid. What do we need to add to make it valid? 250 00:19:23,060 --> 00:19:26,419 Well, we can add a very simple suppressed premise. 251 00:19:26,419 --> 00:19:30,738 If Conoco does have a lease, then it has a valid right to drill. 252 00:19:30,738 --> 00:19:36,223 If you add that to that premise that they do have a lease, then it will be a valid 253 00:19:36,223 --> 00:19:40,680 argument to the conclusion that they have a valid right to drill. 254 00:19:40,680 --> 00:19:44,419 Next, is the argument from two to three to four valid. 255 00:19:44,419 --> 00:19:47,381 Yes. because it's not possible that Conoco has 256 00:19:47,381 --> 00:19:53,096 a valid right to drill and also, if they have a valid right to drill, then the BLM 257 00:19:53,096 --> 00:19:57,542 must allow them to drill. And it not be true that the BLM must 258 00:19:57,542 --> 00:20:02,037 allow them to drill. So, we can take this part of the argument 259 00:20:02,037 --> 00:20:07,910 which is really the BLM's argument but it's in Redford's passage and reconstruct 260 00:20:07,910 --> 00:20:10,230 it like this. Conoco has a lease. 261 00:20:10,230 --> 00:20:15,130 If they have a lease, then they have a valid right to drill so they have a valid 262 00:20:15,130 --> 00:20:18,499 right to drill. And if they have a valid right to drill, 263 00:20:18,499 --> 00:20:23,277 then the BLM has to allow them to drill. So, the BLM has to allow them to drill. 264 00:20:23,277 --> 00:20:25,911 Now, we're ready for Redford's own argument. 265 00:20:25,911 --> 00:20:30,934 His goal is to refute the premise that we had to add to the BLM argument in order 266 00:20:30,934 --> 00:20:35,108 to make that argument valid. In the previous excerpt, we saw that a 267 00:20:35,108 --> 00:20:38,602 lot of people suppress premises that are questionable. 268 00:20:38,602 --> 00:20:42,160 And Redford wants to show how questionable this one is. 269 00:20:42,160 --> 00:20:45,590 He's not going to let them get away with that old trick. 270 00:20:45,590 --> 00:20:51,660 Starting with one and two, is the argument from one to two valid? 271 00:20:51,660 --> 00:20:58,280 No, because it's possible that the premise is true and the conclusion false. 272 00:20:58,280 --> 00:21:01,735 So, what do we need to add to make it valid? 273 00:21:01,735 --> 00:21:05,110 What we need to add is suppressed premise. 274 00:21:05,110 --> 00:21:10,977 And that suppressed premise basically says, no lease that is made without 275 00:21:10,977 --> 00:21:17,566 sufficient environmental study and public input is valid or conveys a valid right 276 00:21:17,566 --> 00:21:21,539 to drill. Then, we have a valid argument from that 277 00:21:21,539 --> 00:21:27,875 premise plus one to the conclusion two that none of Conoco's leases give it a 278 00:21:27,875 --> 00:21:32,830 valid right to drill. Next, comes the step from three and four 279 00:21:32,830 --> 00:21:36,665 to five. Is that valid? 280 00:21:36,665 --> 00:21:40,717 No. Three and four say that they conducted an 281 00:21:40,717 --> 00:21:46,167 abbreviated review and they didn't look at drilling on lands and other federal 282 00:21:46,167 --> 00:21:52,178 leases but those might be true and is still might be true that they didn't 283 00:21:52,178 --> 00:21:56,754 conduct a full analysis. To explain how you get five out of three 284 00:21:56,754 --> 00:22:00,415 and four, we have to add another suppressed premise. 285 00:22:00,415 --> 00:22:05,641 And that premise can simply say, an analysis is not full if it's abbreviated. 286 00:22:05,641 --> 00:22:09,928 And if it doesn't look at drilling on lands and other federal leases. 287 00:22:09,928 --> 00:22:14,908 Notice that I use the word and instead of or, in the suppressed premise and the 288 00:22:14,908 --> 00:22:19,447 reason is that I want to make Redford's argument look as good as possible. 289 00:22:19,447 --> 00:22:24,050 And his premise is going to be more defensible if he uses and instead of or. 290 00:22:24,050 --> 00:22:29,471 Because with and, the premise means that the review is not full if it has both of 291 00:22:29,471 --> 00:22:33,152 those problems. Whereas, if you have or, it says, that 292 00:22:33,152 --> 00:22:37,905 the review is not full if it has either one or other of those problems. 293 00:22:37,905 --> 00:22:43,326 And some people might say that if it has only one of those problems, it's still a 294 00:22:43,326 --> 00:22:46,805 full review. You know, it's a little problem, it's a 295 00:22:46,805 --> 00:22:50,225 little flaw. We just got both of those problems then, 296 00:22:50,225 --> 00:22:55,117 Redford is on stronger ground in saying, together, they show that that's not a 297 00:22:55,117 --> 00:22:58,336 full review. So, if I want to make his premise look 298 00:22:58,336 --> 00:23:03,550 good and that's part of the point, then I want to use and in the suppressed premise 299 00:23:03,550 --> 00:23:07,413 here instead of or. What about step from five to six, is that 300 00:23:07,413 --> 00:23:10,052 valid? No. Here, we need a suppress premise, 301 00:23:10,052 --> 00:23:10,989 too. Which one? 302 00:23:10,989 --> 00:23:16,287 Well, we could just add that if the BLM did not conduct a full analysis of the 303 00:23:16,287 --> 00:23:21,517 environmental impact, then the permit does not give the permit holder a valid 304 00:23:21,517 --> 00:23:24,845 right to drill. Because the process by which they 305 00:23:24,845 --> 00:23:27,834 obtained the permit is not a proper process. 306 00:23:27,834 --> 00:23:31,298 Next, what about the move from two and six to seven? 307 00:23:31,298 --> 00:23:36,256 Two says, that Conoco doesn't have a lease that gives it a valid right to 308 00:23:36,256 --> 00:23:39,381 drill. And six says, that Conoco doesn't have a 309 00:23:39,381 --> 00:23:42,370 permit that gives it a valid right to drill. 310 00:23:42,370 --> 00:23:47,256 Is it possible that both of those are true and yet the conclusion is false and 311 00:23:47,256 --> 00:23:52,143 Conoco does have a valid right to drill? Well, yeah, if there was some other way 312 00:23:52,143 --> 00:23:56,904 for it to get a valid right to drill. So, to make that argument valid, we have 313 00:23:56,904 --> 00:24:00,544 to add another suppressed premise which says, basically no. 314 00:24:00,544 --> 00:24:05,599 If the lease and the permit don't give it a valid right to drill, it ain't got 315 00:24:05,599 --> 00:24:08,126 none. More formally and more stealthily. 316 00:24:08,126 --> 00:24:13,181 We can add a suppressed premise that says, if none of Conoco's leases gives it 317 00:24:13,181 --> 00:24:18,236 a valid right to drill and Conoco's permit does not give Conoco a valid right 318 00:24:18,236 --> 00:24:23,356 to drill, then Conoco does not have a valid right to drill and that should make 319 00:24:23,356 --> 00:24:28,532 that step of the argument valid. There's only one left, the step from 320 00:24:28,532 --> 00:24:33,620 seven and eight to nine. Is that valid? 321 00:24:33,620 --> 00:24:39,992 Yeah. It's not possible that Conoco doesn't have a valid right to drill and 322 00:24:39,992 --> 00:24:46,365 if they don't have a valid right to drill, then the BLM must not allow them 323 00:24:46,365 --> 00:24:49,499 to drill. And not be true that the BLM must not 324 00:24:49,499 --> 00:24:53,427 allow Conoco to drill. So, that's valid and we don't have to add 325 00:24:53,427 --> 00:24:58,494 any suppressed premise to that one. And now, we can take all these different 326 00:24:58,494 --> 00:25:03,974 explicit premises and conclusions and put them together with the suppressed 327 00:25:03,974 --> 00:25:09,742 premises that we just talked about and we end up with this final reconstruction. 328 00:25:09,742 --> 00:25:12,771 One, all of Conoco's leases were originally 329 00:25:12,771 --> 00:25:17,241 issued without sufficient environmental study or public input. 330 00:25:17,241 --> 00:25:20,071 Two, no leases that were originally issued 331 00:25:20,071 --> 00:25:25,288 without sufficient environmental study or public input, give the lease holder a 332 00:25:25,288 --> 00:25:29,301 valid right to drill. Therefore, none of Conoco's leases give 333 00:25:29,301 --> 00:25:35,369 it a valid right to drill. Four, the BLM conducted an abbreviated 334 00:25:35,369 --> 00:25:39,265 review. Five, the BLM didn't look at drilling on 335 00:25:39,265 --> 00:25:42,333 lands under other federal leases. Six, 336 00:25:42,333 --> 00:25:47,969 an analysis is not full if it's abbreviated and it does not look at 337 00:25:47,969 --> 00:25:51,700 drilling on lands under other federal leases. 338 00:25:53,039 --> 00:25:58,169 Therefore seven, the BLM did not conduct a full analysis of the environmental 339 00:25:58,169 --> 00:26:01,740 impact of drilling on these incomparable lands. 340 00:26:01,740 --> 00:26:04,699 Eight, if the BLM does not conduct a full 341 00:26:04,699 --> 00:26:10,330 analysis of the environmental impacts of drilling in these incomparable lands 342 00:26:10,330 --> 00:26:16,177 before issuing a permit, then that permit does not give the permit holder a valid 343 00:26:16,177 --> 00:26:20,698 right to drill. Therefore nine, Conoco's permit does not 344 00:26:20,698 --> 00:26:27,822 give Conoco a valid right to drill. Ten, if none of Conoco's leases gives it 345 00:26:27,822 --> 00:26:33,443 a valid right to drill and Conoco's permit does not give Conoco a valid right 346 00:26:33,443 --> 00:26:37,623 to drill, then Conoco does not have a valid right to drill. 347 00:26:37,623 --> 00:26:42,600 Therefore eleven, Conoco does not have a valid right to drill. 348 00:26:42,600 --> 00:26:49,298 Twelve, if Conoco does not have a valid right to drill, then the BLM must not 349 00:26:49,298 --> 00:26:54,410 allow Conoco to drill. Therefore thirteen, the BLM must not 350 00:26:54,410 --> 00:26:59,206 allow Conoco to drill. Of course, other reconstructions could be 351 00:26:59,206 --> 00:27:04,388 perfectly fine, even if they differ in a few details because not every step in 352 00:27:04,388 --> 00:27:09,569 this process is purely mechanical so it doesn't always yield exactly the same 353 00:27:09,569 --> 00:27:13,821 results every time. But I hope that this reconstruction seems 354 00:27:13,821 --> 00:27:19,467 plausible as a guess at what was going on in Redford's mind and the reasons that he 355 00:27:19,467 --> 00:27:23,121 had for thinking that the BLM should stop the drilling. 356 00:27:23,121 --> 00:27:28,169 If you want, we can check to make sure that this structure makes sense by trying 357 00:27:28,169 --> 00:27:32,148 to diagram it. So, here's a diagram that I made of the 358 00:27:32,148 --> 00:27:35,980 structure of the argument that I just reconstructed. 359 00:27:35,980 --> 00:27:41,952 To the left, you see, one plus two and an underline under it saying that those 360 00:27:41,952 --> 00:27:46,916 premises work together, in a joint structure, and an arrow, to the 361 00:27:46,916 --> 00:27:51,080 conclusion from those two premises, namely, three. 362 00:27:51,080 --> 00:27:56,548 Then to the right of that you see that four, five, and six are joined. 363 00:27:56,548 --> 00:28:02,580 Four p-lus five plus six and an underline with an arrow to seven because that's the 364 00:28:02,580 --> 00:28:06,580 conclusion that those three premises support. 365 00:28:06,580 --> 00:28:12,511 Seven plus eight is then underlined to show they work jointly to lead to the 366 00:28:12,511 --> 00:28:15,900 conclusion nine, so there's an arrow to nine. 367 00:28:15,900 --> 00:28:21,760 And then, there's a long underline between three, nine, and ten that other 368 00:28:21,760 --> 00:28:27,103 suppressed premise that was added. That shows that three, nine, and ten 369 00:28:27,103 --> 00:28:31,606 worked together jointly and lead you the conclusion eleven. 370 00:28:31,606 --> 00:28:37,560 And then, eleven works together with twelve so you have eleven plus twelve and 371 00:28:37,560 --> 00:28:40,842 that's underline with an arrow to thirteen. 372 00:28:40,842 --> 00:28:46,185 Now, the fact that we can draw this diagram confirms that the argument 373 00:28:46,185 --> 00:28:50,612 structure makes sense. Now, let's see whether you can do it 374 00:28:50,612 --> 00:28:52,597 yourself in the exercises.