Now, we've really done it. We're finished with reconstruction.
Hooray. But we want to go through it one more
time in a detailed example to show how that all the different stages fit
together. And which example are we going to pick?
Well, if you've been in the course this far, I bet you can guess.
Robert Redford again. We're going to look at paragraph three of
his article and go through reconstruction to show that reconstruction gives you an
even deeper understanding than when we first went through it using close
analysis alone. Reconstruction begins with close
analysis. So, the first thing I'll do is read
through the passage and mark the important words in order to do a close
analysis of Redford's paragraph. The BLM says it's hands are tied.
Remember, the BLM is the Bureau of Land Management.
Why? Because, because it's a premise marker.
It's indicating that the sentence after is a premise for the conclusion that the
BLM's hands are tied. Because these lands were set aside
subject to valid existing rights, you could say that valid and rights are
evaluative terms but that's not going to matter to our analysis here.
And Conoco has a lease that gives it the right to drill.
And notice we've got a tricky argument marker here, gives it.
Because the point of that sentence is that it's the lease that explains why it
has the right to drill or justifies the claim that it does have the right to
drill, so gives it is an argument marker and in particular, it has the right to
drill is the conclusion, so it's a conclusion marker.
Sure, Conoco has a lease. Sure is going to be an assuring term,
more then one, in fact. In fact is another assuring term but,
but it's going to be a discounting term, indicating that there is an objection
being responded to. Those leases were originally issued
without sufficient environmental study or public input.
And you could think that originally, it's a guarding term because it's not saying
that they are never was sufficient environmental input that is environmental
study or public input. It might have come later just not
originally, but again, that's not going to play any part in the argument itself.
So, it could be a guarding term but you can mark it if you want.
But as a result, the first three words of the next sentence, that's clearly an
argument marker. And it's indicating that the sentence
after it is a conclusion. So, it's a conclusion marker.
None of them conveyed a valid right to drill.
What's more, now, we're indicating there's a separate
argument. There's a new premise coming, another
reason for the same conclusion. In deciding to issue a permit to drill
right now, the BLM did not conduct a full analysis of the environmental impacts of
drilling in these incomparable lands, but discounting, right?
Instead, determined that there would be no significant environmental harm on the
basis of, this is telling you, how they reach that determination, it was an
abbreviated review. They had an abbreviated review that
justified or explained their determination.
So, that's a premise marker. It didn't even look even as a tricky one
it's discounting an objection. It's saying well, they looked a little
bit but they didn't look at this. It discounted the objection that they did
lookups, at least some. They didn't even look at drilling on the
other federal leases, okay?
Sounds like clearly a guarding term. It's not saying it is, but it sounds like
Washington doublespeak. Doublespeak is bad.
You don't want to doublespeak to me. And maybe, to me, is another guarding
term in the sense that it sounds that way to me, but not to others.
So, we could mark that as a guard as well.
So, we have finished stage one of reconstructing this argument.
We've done a close analysis. The next stage is to get rid of all the
excess verbiage. So, we'll start a new screen and do that.
The BLM saysm its hands are tied. Well,
the claim is that its hands are tied, so we can get rid of the fact that the BLM
says that. Why?
Because we can get rid of those words because they're going to get replaced by
a dot pyramid in standard form. These lands were set aside subject to
valid existing rights, good. And the Conoco has a lease that gives it
the right to drill, good. And we can get rid of, because we're
going to have two separate premises there that gives it, right?
Well, that's going to be an argument marker as we saw that's going to get
replaced by another dot pyramid. Sure, Conoco has a lease, more than one,
in fact. Now, noticed there, Redford is admitting
what his opponent claims, but that's not going to be part of his argument, he's
just saying, I recognize that. His arguments are going be based on
different clients so we can get rid of sure, Conoco has a lease, more than one,
in fact, and the but tells you that he's just answering an objection.
These leases were originally issued without sufficient environmental study or
input, that's going to be an important premise.
As a result, we saw that was an argument marker going to be replaced by a dot
pyramid like the others. None of them conveyed a valid right to
drill. What's more,
another argument marker, so it's going to get replaced by a dot pyramid.
In deciding to issue a permit to drill now, the BLM did not conduct a full
analysis, blah, blah, blah. But instead, that's going to be
discounting terms, and that's going to be important for understanding what the
sentences are doing. But it's not going to get repeated in the
premise when we put it in standard form. They determined there would be no
significant impact on the basis of an abbreviated review, that didn't even look
at drilling on the other federal leases. The next step is to take all the parts
that weren't crossed out. They're going to be the explicit premises
and conclusion in the argument, and put them into standard form.
If you think about this paragraph, there are really two arguments, because at the
start, what Redford tries to do is to state what the BLM's argument was to
begin with, and then he gives his own argument against what the BLM says.
So, BLM's argument can be put in standard form like this.
First premise, Conoco has a list that gives it the right to drill. Second
premise, these lands were set aside subject to valid existing rights, and
those two premises lead to the conclusion that the BLM's hands were tied.
Now, that's the BLM's argument that Redford is arguing against.
Redford's own argument on the other side, starts with the premise, those leases
were originally issued without sufficient environmental study or public input.
Second premise, in deciding to issue a permit to drill
now, the BLM did not conduct a full analysis of the environmental impacts of
drilling on these incomparable lands. But instead, determined there would be no
significant environmental harm on the basis of an abbreviated review that
didn't even look at drilling on other federal leases.
Those two premises lead to the conclusion that none of these convey the valid right
to drill. And then, there's another premise, these
lands were set aside subject to valid existing rights and that's suppose to
lead the conclusion, this is Washington doublespeak.
Well, we'll have to see what all that means when we clarify but that's
basically the standard form. It might be a good idea to double check
because you want to make sure that every sentence that you didn't cross out is
somewhere there in the standard form. So, let's look back at the passage where
we crossed out the excess and make sure everything is there in the standard form.
Okay. It's all there.
Good. Well, the next stage is to sharpen edges.
And that means clarify the premises and break them up where doing so would help
understand what they are really claiming. So, let's look first at the BLM's
argument. Which simply says, Conoco has a lease.
These lands were set aside subject to valid rights,
therefore, its hands are tied. We're going to clarify, first of all, the
conclusion. Its hands are tied.
What does that mean? Well, basically, the BLM is claiming, I
can't do anything about Conoco. You know, my hands are tied.
Don't hold me responsible, there's nothing I can do,
okay? They are offering, an excuse.
Next, premise two. These lands were set aside subject to
valid existing rights. Well, what does set aside means?
It means, that you're not allowed to drill there.
Subject to valid, existing rights means that you are allowed to drill there if
you've got a valid existing right. So, this premise can be restated as
saying that if Conaco does have a valid, existing right to drill, then the BLM
must allow Conaco to drill? Okay, what about breaking up premises?
What about premise one? Well, that's one that I think we're going
to have to break up. because it says, that Conoco has a lease
that gives it the right to drill. And gives it, we already marked as an
argument marker, which suggests that the fact that Conoco has a lease is supposed
to be a reason why it has a right to drill. So, there's an argument implicit
in that one sentence. And that means that we can take this
whole argument and restate it something like this. Conoco has a lease, therefore,
Conoco has a valid right to drill. If Conoco has a valid right to drill,
then the BLM must allow Conoco to drill. Therefore, the BLM must allow Conoco to
drill. That is supposed to be the central force
of the explicit premises and conclusions in the first part, where the BLM gives
its argument. The next part is Redford's response to
this argument. Let's start with Redford's conclusion.
What is he trying to show? He's trying to show the opposite of the
BLM's argument. They're trying to show that their hands
are tied, that is that they can't stop Conoco from drilling.
So, Redford wants to show that they can stop Conoco from drilling, or even that
they must stop Conoco from drilling. So, that's the conclusion he's trying to
reach. What he says is, sounds like Washington
doublespeak to me. Well, that because he's saying that
people in Washington always say their hands are tied and can't get anything
done and he's going to argue that their hands aren't tied, because they can and
must stop Conoco from drilling. So, we can replace the conclusion simply
with the claim that the BLM must stop Conoco from drilling.
Now, we know how the argument ends. So, let's take those premises and
conclusion and number them pretty high so that we can leave some room for the other
premises that come before them. The next thing we need to do is to get an
argument for that central premise, Conoco does not have any valid right to drill.
No, here's what Redford said. That the leases were originally issued
without sufficient environmental study or public input.
And in deciding to issue a permit now, the BLM didn't conduct a full analysis.
Notice that there are two parts to these claims.
One is about the leases and the other is about the permit.
Because in order to have a valid right to drill, Conoco needs to have a lease and a
permit. Redford argues that there are problems
with both the lease and the permit. But the considerations are a little
different so we need to separate those two parts into different arguments.
The first part of his argument concerns the leases.
He says, that the leases were originally issued without sufficient environmental
study or public input. Therefore, none of the leases conveyed a valid right to
drill. Then, the second part has to do with the
permit. In deciding the issue of permit to drill
now, the BLM did not conduct a full analysis, therefore, none of the permits
conveyed a valid right to drill. And the idea of the argument is going to
be that the leases don't give them a right and the permits don't give them a
right, so they ain't go no right. Wow.
But that premise in the argument to show that the permit is not valid is a long
premise, with lots of different parts. So, we need to break it up.
And we can figure out how to break it up by looking at the argument markers in the
part of the passage that in effect constitute that premise.
We know that there's a premise marker at the beginning.
Once more, a discounting term, but on the basis of,
is an argument marker. Even is a discounting term and that breaks that
long premise into parts so we can break them into A, the BLM did not conduct a
full analysis of the environmental impacts of drilling on these incomparable
lands, no full analysis. B, the BLM determined that there would be
no significant environmental harm, okay? C, the BLM conductive only in
abbreviated review of the environmental harm.
And D, the BLM didn't even look at drilling on other federal leases.
What about B, the BLM determined there would be no significant environmental
impact. Well, that's what Redford opposes so
that's not going to be part of his argument.
How do the other three claims fit together.
Which is a reason for which? And now, we're into a different step,
namely, organize the parts. And it's not completely clear but it
seems like Redford has two separate complaints.
One is that the BLM did not look sufficiently hard at the environmental
impact at this particular site, the [UNKNOWN].
The other complaint is that they didn't do a comparative analysis and look at
other leases on other federal lands to see, you know, what happens when drilling
was allowed there and when permits were issued in those other circumstances.
So, one claim is about this particular site and the other claim is a lack of
comparison to other sites. These two points become even clearer in
the next paragraph, if you'll remember that.
There he said, first, I've spent considerable time in these extraordinary
lands for years and I know that an oil rig in their midst would have a major
impact. So there, he's talking about the impact
on this particular site, on these particular lands.
Right after that, he says, what's more, indicating it's a separate argument,
what's more, Conoco wants to drill a well to find oil.
Inevitably, more rigs, more roads, new pipelines, toxic waste, and bright lights
would follow to get the oil out. There, he seems to be suggesting, if you
just looked over at the other leases, you'd find that when you allow oil
drilling, a lot more happens than you ever expected to begin with.
I'm, of course, not agreeing with this. It might of be true or it might not.
My point is that this is a structure of Redford's own claims that make up his own
argument. So, there are two separate ways in which
the review failed to be false. The first is that the BLM conducted only
an abbreviated review in the sense that they didn't look carefully at this
particular site itself. And the second is that the BLM didn't
look at drilling in other places. Therefore, the conclusion is the BLM did
not conduct a full analysis. That seems to be what Redford is saying
in this particular sentence. Now, let's bring it all together and
clean it up a little bit in the process. One, all of Conoco's leases were
originally issued without sufficient environmental study or public input
that's supposed to support. Two, none of Conoco's leases give it a
valid right to drill. Then three, the BLM conducted an
abbreviated review. They didn't look as careful as they
should have at the lands. Four, the BLM didn't look at drilling on
lands under the other federal leases of the comparative claim.
And those two are suppose to support five the BLM did not conduct a full analysis.
And what that's suppose to show is that six, its permit did not give Conoco a
valid right to drill. They are four, seven which is supposed to
follow from two and six. Conoco does not have a valid right to
drill. A, if Conoco does not have a valid right
to drill, then the BLM must not allow Conoco to drill.
Therefore, the BLM must not allow Conoco to drill.
Make sense? Seem fair?
I hope so. I think it's a pretty good reconstruction
of what Redford had in mind. However, as you probably noticed already,
these arguments are not valid yet, so we need to go to the next stage and fill in
the gaps with surpressed premises. Let's do that now, let's start with the
BLM's argument. Is the argument from one to two valid?
Is it possible that Conoco has a lease but it doesn't have a valid right to
drill? Well, sure.
And so, that argument is not valid. What do we need to add to make it valid?
Well, we can add a very simple suppressed premise.
If Conoco does have a lease, then it has a valid right to drill.
If you add that to that premise that they do have a lease, then it will be a valid
argument to the conclusion that they have a valid right to drill.
Next, is the argument from two to three to four valid.
Yes. because it's not possible that Conoco has
a valid right to drill and also, if they have a valid right to drill, then the BLM
must allow them to drill. And it not be true that the BLM must
allow them to drill. So, we can take this part of the argument
which is really the BLM's argument but it's in Redford's passage and reconstruct
it like this. Conoco has a lease.
If they have a lease, then they have a valid right to drill so they have a valid
right to drill. And if they have a valid right to drill,
then the BLM has to allow them to drill. So, the BLM has to allow them to drill.
Now, we're ready for Redford's own argument.
His goal is to refute the premise that we had to add to the BLM argument in order
to make that argument valid. In the previous excerpt, we saw that a
lot of people suppress premises that are questionable.
And Redford wants to show how questionable this one is.
He's not going to let them get away with that old trick.
Starting with one and two, is the argument from one to two valid?
No, because it's possible that the premise is true and the conclusion false.
So, what do we need to add to make it valid?
What we need to add is suppressed premise.
And that suppressed premise basically says, no lease that is made without
sufficient environmental study and public input is valid or conveys a valid right
to drill. Then, we have a valid argument from that
premise plus one to the conclusion two that none of Conoco's leases give it a
valid right to drill. Next, comes the step from three and four
to five. Is that valid?
No. Three and four say that they conducted an
abbreviated review and they didn't look at drilling on lands and other federal
leases but those might be true and is still might be true that they didn't
conduct a full analysis. To explain how you get five out of three
and four, we have to add another suppressed premise.
And that premise can simply say, an analysis is not full if it's abbreviated.
And if it doesn't look at drilling on lands and other federal leases.
Notice that I use the word and instead of or, in the suppressed premise and the
reason is that I want to make Redford's argument look as good as possible.
And his premise is going to be more defensible if he uses and instead of or.
Because with and, the premise means that the review is not full if it has both of
those problems. Whereas, if you have or, it says, that
the review is not full if it has either one or other of those problems.
And some people might say that if it has only one of those problems, it's still a
full review. You know, it's a little problem, it's a
little flaw. We just got both of those problems then,
Redford is on stronger ground in saying, together, they show that that's not a
full review. So, if I want to make his premise look
good and that's part of the point, then I want to use and in the suppressed premise
here instead of or. What about step from five to six, is that
valid? No. Here, we need a suppress premise,
too. Which one?
Well, we could just add that if the BLM did not conduct a full analysis of the
environmental impact, then the permit does not give the permit holder a valid
right to drill. Because the process by which they
obtained the permit is not a proper process.
Next, what about the move from two and six to seven?
Two says, that Conoco doesn't have a lease that gives it a valid right to
drill. And six says, that Conoco doesn't have a
permit that gives it a valid right to drill.
Is it possible that both of those are true and yet the conclusion is false and
Conoco does have a valid right to drill? Well, yeah, if there was some other way
for it to get a valid right to drill. So, to make that argument valid, we have
to add another suppressed premise which says, basically no.
If the lease and the permit don't give it a valid right to drill, it ain't got
none. More formally and more stealthily.
We can add a suppressed premise that says, if none of Conoco's leases gives it
a valid right to drill and Conoco's permit does not give Conoco a valid right
to drill, then Conoco does not have a valid right to drill and that should make
that step of the argument valid. There's only one left, the step from
seven and eight to nine. Is that valid?
Yeah. It's not possible that Conoco doesn't have a valid right to drill and
if they don't have a valid right to drill, then the BLM must not allow them
to drill. And not be true that the BLM must not
allow Conoco to drill. So, that's valid and we don't have to add
any suppressed premise to that one. And now, we can take all these different
explicit premises and conclusions and put them together with the suppressed
premises that we just talked about and we end up with this final reconstruction.
One, all of Conoco's leases were originally
issued without sufficient environmental study or public input.
Two, no leases that were originally issued
without sufficient environmental study or public input, give the lease holder a
valid right to drill. Therefore, none of Conoco's leases give
it a valid right to drill. Four, the BLM conducted an abbreviated
review. Five, the BLM didn't look at drilling on
lands under other federal leases. Six,
an analysis is not full if it's abbreviated and it does not look at
drilling on lands under other federal leases.
Therefore seven, the BLM did not conduct a full analysis of the environmental
impact of drilling on these incomparable lands.
Eight, if the BLM does not conduct a full
analysis of the environmental impacts of drilling in these incomparable lands
before issuing a permit, then that permit does not give the permit holder a valid
right to drill. Therefore nine, Conoco's permit does not
give Conoco a valid right to drill. Ten, if none of Conoco's leases gives it
a valid right to drill and Conoco's permit does not give Conoco a valid right
to drill, then Conoco does not have a valid right to drill.
Therefore eleven, Conoco does not have a valid right to drill.
Twelve, if Conoco does not have a valid right to drill, then the BLM must not
allow Conoco to drill. Therefore thirteen, the BLM must not
allow Conoco to drill. Of course, other reconstructions could be
perfectly fine, even if they differ in a few details because not every step in
this process is purely mechanical so it doesn't always yield exactly the same
results every time. But I hope that this reconstruction seems
plausible as a guess at what was going on in Redford's mind and the reasons that he
had for thinking that the BLM should stop the drilling.
If you want, we can check to make sure that this structure makes sense by trying
to diagram it. So, here's a diagram that I made of the
structure of the argument that I just reconstructed.
To the left, you see, one plus two and an underline under it saying that those
premises work together, in a joint structure, and an arrow, to the
conclusion from those two premises, namely, three.
Then to the right of that you see that four, five, and six are joined.
Four p-lus five plus six and an underline with an arrow to seven because that's the
conclusion that those three premises support.
Seven plus eight is then underlined to show they work jointly to lead to the
conclusion nine, so there's an arrow to nine.
And then, there's a long underline between three, nine, and ten that other
suppressed premise that was added. That shows that three, nine, and ten
worked together jointly and lead you the conclusion eleven.
And then, eleven works together with twelve so you have eleven plus twelve and
that's underline with an arrow to thirteen.
Now, the fact that we can draw this diagram confirms that the argument
structure makes sense. Now, let's see whether you can do it
yourself in the exercises.