Welcome back. Now, you've done paragraph three yourselves and we're going to go on to paragraph four. It might seem like we're 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 through paragraphs four and five of Robert Redford's piece in the Washington Post from 1997. The title was A Piece of God's Handiwork. Paragraph four starts, sounds like Washington double-speak to me. What is it that sounds like Washington double-speak to him? It's the sentence at the end of the previous paragraph that you analyze. 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's 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 double speak, it's not good so we can indicate that double speaking is a negative evaluation. And it's a, a metaphor, but clearly negative in its meaning. 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's 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 all doing the same thing. What's it doing? It's assuring you. You see, 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're 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, 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 assure you that it's true, 'kay? And what does he know? He knows that an oil rig in their midst. Would have a major impact. Now, what about that a major impact, okay? Now, he's clearly saying it would be a bad impact but does he come out an say it's bad no he just says it's major, okay? So, it's not evaluative term that would be labeled as nothing if nothing is an option. So, 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, what's more, he's suggesting that what's going to come next is yet another argument for why we shouldn't have these, these permits issue. 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 teleological 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? Inevitability. 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 wastes 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 have 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, 'kay? 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? 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 U.S. 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency did see. But in addition to the contrast between those two he's also saying it's more important that the U.S. 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, recognize implies you can't recognize things that aren't true. You know, if you see somebody and you'd 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 minus. Effects of extensive oil drilling. Extensive is that bad? No, extensive oil drilling's good in the right places. Gives us the kind of energy we need to be able to accomplish the goals that we want. Maybe you'd 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 urged 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 op-ed. 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 an order to protect, an 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 finished four paragraphs! Alright! We're almost done! Yes! 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 somebody comes along and says, that's not really true. I, I'm going to say, well, j, maybe it's true. It's all I was claiming. And so I'm now able to defend my premise, okay? Problem, what about problem? Gotta be e minus, 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 minus. So, the problem comes from namely, is explained by giving management responsibility for this monument to the BLM. So comes from can get marked as a premise marker. It's the 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, why is giving management responsibility to the BLM create a problem? Because the next sentence tells you this is the BLM's first national monument, 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 service's mission is to protect the resources under its care, okay? Protect good, resources good. So those both get e plus. While, what about the word while? It's not completely clear. You could read this as simply setting up a contrast between the park services mission and the bureau's mission. But you could 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 Service's mission is to protect, but the bureau has always, it looks like you can replace it with the 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 it's 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 seemed to be. That's a guarding term. It's not saying they were. It's saying they seemed to be 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. Whats yet? Another discounting term. The agency's decision to allow oil drilling in the monument completely undercuts this process just as it is beginning. The objection is, so if they go off to a good start whats the problem if they listed broad public involvement, whats 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 just counting the objection that says there's no problem here, they're doin just fine, they've 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 is 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's I'm assuring you it's not just partially undercutting, it's completely undercutting. That's a way of, 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 mark it 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 others things to discuss. These paragraphs, these op-eds are always extremely complex and interesting to try to get the details straight. But I'll give you a chance to look at the next three paragraphs. They're all pretty short. 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.
