-
rb90
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:14 am
- Location: India
- GMAT Score:710
Hello people,
I plan to take my GMAT in 8 days' time.Really eed to work on my AWA.Could anyone please please rate my essay.I would really appreciate the help .Thanks.
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.
---
The writer, in the given argument, claims that the claims of politicians that we are on the brink of an energy crisis, isnt actually true. The writer mentions that oil reserves will suffice us long enough for us not to worry about the shortage of suplly of in-ground oil, and that theres no cause for worry in the coming future.He thus concludes that there's no need to take conservation measures for the oil supply in the country.This assertion of the writer is however flawed. The assumption that the " energy crisis " refers only to the shortage of in-ground oil , is too extreme.Also , the writer believes " 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." This mentality of short term thinking isn't helping the writers cause either as such crises a that of energy usually refer not to the immediate future , but the long run picture as a whole.Hence the reasoning is severely flawed here, and hence the conclusion also loses its weight.
Firstly, the writer assumes that energy crisis refers only to the crisis of oil shortage.This is correct to a certain extent.What the writer fails to realise is that energy also includes hydroelectricity, coal , forests , and other such natural finite resources. An energy crisis is a holistic world encompassing the entire realm of natural resources which provide essential energy to us in various forms.
Secondly, the writer's assertion( as a premise in the argument ) that in- ground oil is in no danger of running anytime soon, isn't practical. When politicians mentioned an energy crisis, it meant that the crisis will occur in a period of time longer than "anytime soon" . Hence the conclusion of the argument "There is thus no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy " also fails to reflect relevance of any sort.
The writers argument may, however, get better acknowledged if the he would've mentioned facts about other sources of energy like hydroelectricity, coal , forests , and other such natural finite resources. Mentioning of the condition of these resources regarding their availability would've helped the conclusion's cause, which in this case would've been something like "There is thus no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of underground oils, coal , forests etc."
Hence , we conclude by mentioning that ,in the context of the politicians' claim, the argument's premises fall incomplete consequently the conclusion also falls short,becoming guilty of short sightedness.The assumption of energy including only oil based energy also isn't convincing and appropriate, again becoming guilty of limiting to only oil as a form of energy.Mentioning other forms of energy like coal would've done justice to the writers claim(which ideally should also have mentioned these other forms of energy) to a greater extent.
I plan to take my GMAT in 8 days' time.Really eed to work on my AWA.Could anyone please please rate my essay.I would really appreciate the help .Thanks.
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.
---
The writer, in the given argument, claims that the claims of politicians that we are on the brink of an energy crisis, isnt actually true. The writer mentions that oil reserves will suffice us long enough for us not to worry about the shortage of suplly of in-ground oil, and that theres no cause for worry in the coming future.He thus concludes that there's no need to take conservation measures for the oil supply in the country.This assertion of the writer is however flawed. The assumption that the " energy crisis " refers only to the shortage of in-ground oil , is too extreme.Also , the writer believes " 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." This mentality of short term thinking isn't helping the writers cause either as such crises a that of energy usually refer not to the immediate future , but the long run picture as a whole.Hence the reasoning is severely flawed here, and hence the conclusion also loses its weight.
Firstly, the writer assumes that energy crisis refers only to the crisis of oil shortage.This is correct to a certain extent.What the writer fails to realise is that energy also includes hydroelectricity, coal , forests , and other such natural finite resources. An energy crisis is a holistic world encompassing the entire realm of natural resources which provide essential energy to us in various forms.
Secondly, the writer's assertion( as a premise in the argument ) that in- ground oil is in no danger of running anytime soon, isn't practical. When politicians mentioned an energy crisis, it meant that the crisis will occur in a period of time longer than "anytime soon" . Hence the conclusion of the argument "There is thus no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy " also fails to reflect relevance of any sort.
The writers argument may, however, get better acknowledged if the he would've mentioned facts about other sources of energy like hydroelectricity, coal , forests , and other such natural finite resources. Mentioning of the condition of these resources regarding their availability would've helped the conclusion's cause, which in this case would've been something like "There is thus no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of underground oils, coal , forests etc."
Hence , we conclude by mentioning that ,in the context of the politicians' claim, the argument's premises fall incomplete consequently the conclusion also falls short,becoming guilty of short sightedness.The assumption of energy including only oil based energy also isn't convincing and appropriate, again becoming guilty of limiting to only oil as a form of energy.Mentioning other forms of energy like coal would've done justice to the writers claim(which ideally should also have mentioned these other forms of energy) to a greater extent.
