In "A Piece of 'God's Handiwork"" (Exercise II in Chapter 4), Robert Redford argues that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) should not allow Conoco to drill for oil in Utah's Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The following passage is a crucial part where Redford answers an objection. Arrange its subarguments in standard form so as to reveal the structure of his argument. Then diagram the overall argument. The BLM says its hands are tied. Why? Because these lands were set aside subject to "valid existing rights," and Conoco has a lease that gives it the right to drill. Sure Conoco has a lease-more than one, in fact-but those leases were originally issued without sufficient environmental study or public input. As a result, none of them conveyed a valid right to drill. What's more, in deciding to issue a permit to drill now, the BLM did not conduct a full analysis of the environmental impacts of drilling in 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 the other federal leases. Sounds like Washington doublespeak to $\mathrm{me}^3$