GMAT Essays (AWA)

ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a newspaper editorial:
"The claims of some politicians that we are on the brink of an energy crisis are misguided. We have enough oil in reserve to see us through any production shortage and the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out any time soon. There is thus no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.

MY RESPONSE:
The argument states that, the claims of some politicians that world is on the brink of an energy crisis are misguided. The argument claims that we have enough oil in reserve to see us through any production shortage and the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out any time soon. Thus we do not need to set aide the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil based energy. Though this argument seems well rounded it does contain some inherent flaws in its reasoning which are discussed below.

First, the aforementioned argument appear in the editorial section of the newspaper. It is an article for genral reading and is generally written by individuals having varied backgrounds. The argument could have been bolstered if the author's background was mentioned in the article. A person with a credible background, who has knowledge in the particular field is writing this article then more weight could have been added to it. However if the article is written by a member of the opposition party then one could discount a lot of information provided, as the opposition to the politicians claim could be purely political.

Second, if the argument states that we have enough oil in reserve and that we would not face any production shortage the argument could have been bolstered if the article contained actual numbers to prove that we do have sufficient reserves. Also an estimate figure for expected production could have been mentioned.

Third,how much is sufficient? If the reserves of the country stand at 100 litres of oil and the future production is expected to be 0.1 litres per year then the argument is well reasoned that the politicians claims that we are on the brink of an energy crisis are misguided. However if the estimated future production is 50 litres a year then the politicians claims are well founded that indeed we would face an energy crisis in the near fututre. Lack of data in the article has left a logical flaw in the editorials reasoning.

Fourth, if the claim that we have enough reserves is to be believed the argument does not state the amount of oil that can still be extracted. The reserves will run out eventually. The important thing is the amount of natural reserves that can still be extracted. If the natural oil fields of the country have already been depleted then it is true that we could face an energy crisis if we do not use the resource judicially.

Finally, the argument states that there is no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil based energy. The argument is well reasoned in this aspect that if the oil reserves are sufficient then we do not need to set aside technology and infrastructure that has been used for so many years in the past just yet, however the article could have mentioned that in the near future more advanced technology will be needed to make the consumption of oil more efficient. Better technology would reduce the oil demand and bolster the articles claim that we do not need to panic just yet about an energy crisis. Necessity is the mother of invention. if we cast begin to phase out the old technology systematically there will be a need to invent newer technology to improve efficiency.

"The argument states that, the claims of some politicians that world is on the brink of an energy crisis are misguided."

You need to insert "the" in front of "world".

"First, the aforementioned argument appear in the editorial section of the newspaper."

You need to say "appears"

"The argument could have been bolstered if the author's background was mentioned in the article."

I don't think this is valid. With these prompts we are supposed to discuss the arguments themselves, the background of the author has no bearing on the logical validity of an argument.

"Second, if the argument states that we have enough oil in reserve and that we would not face any production shortage the argument could have been bolstered if the article contained actual numbers to prove that we do have sufficient reserves."

This needs to be rewritten. It is unclear what you are trying to communicate. You can't say, "if the argument states..." because the argument did in fact state that we have enough oil in reserve. You may want to word it like this: "If the author is going to argue that we have enough oil in reserve that we would not face any production shortage, then the argument could be bolstered by providing the statistical data that would support this claim."

"Third,how much is sufficient?"

I don't think this is "wrong", but I wouldn't do this. Start this paragraph by saying, "Another way that the author could strengthen his/her argument is by defining how much oil is enough to sustain our society."

"Fourth, if the claim that we have enough reserves is to be believed the argument does not state the amount of oil that can still be extracted."

What do you mean by "is to be believed"? Rewrite that

"Necessity is the mother of invention. if we cast begin to phase out the old technology systematically there will be a need to invent newer technology to improve efficiency."

I'm unclear on what you are trying to convey. Reword this.