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."
In the preceding argument the editorial's writer claims that world's oil reserves are fair enough to satisfy energy needs for at least a century, therefore the author presumes that we should not abandon our oil based technology and infrastructure and replace them with new innovative energy source decisions. Though his claim may well have merit, the writer's argument is poorly reasoned, with no substantial evidential support and based solely on questionable assumptions, we cannot accept his statement as valid.
Primary, the writer erroneously assumes that oil reserves are not depleted and that we have enough of the black gold to supplement all energy shortages around the world. Moreover, the editorial's composer does not provide any proof of his statement, leaving his reasoning unsupported. Just the opposite, today we are witnessing major energy shortages and oil crisis. For example, in a recent scientific report in Us today, researchers agree that oil reserves are limited and in fifty years will deplete them entirely.
In addition, the author should elaborate more on his reasoning and relation between oil crisis and infrastructure. Oil problems could happen even in times where there is enough black gold on the market and so innovation in oil technology and infrastructure could be a wise move. A vivid example of that is the war in Iraq where a political action changed the oil price around the world and led to oil shortages in some countries. Without innovation in energy saving technology a country could face serious economic and energy problem.
Lastly, there is a patent fact that oil is running out and we would inevitably face the energy crisis the author mentions. In the argument the writer falsely assumes that such circumstance would not happen and we should not worry for innovation and energy saving technology. However, a country which manages to satisfy its energy consumption with renewable sources like the sun, the wind force or the power of the waves, would have substantial advantage when oil is entirely depleted. So renewing energy infrastructure is probably not so irrelevant.
In sum, the author's reasoning lacks solid evidential support and presents questionable assumption. The writer fails to convince the reader with his flawed statement.
"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."
In the preceding argument the editorial's writer claims that world's oil reserves are fair enough to satisfy energy needs for at least a century, therefore the author presumes that we should not abandon our oil based technology and infrastructure and replace them with new innovative energy source decisions. Though his claim may well have merit, the writer's argument is poorly reasoned, with no substantial evidential support and based solely on questionable assumptions, we cannot accept his statement as valid.
Primary, the writer erroneously assumes that oil reserves are not depleted and that we have enough of the black gold to supplement all energy shortages around the world. Moreover, the editorial's composer does not provide any proof of his statement, leaving his reasoning unsupported. Just the opposite, today we are witnessing major energy shortages and oil crisis. For example, in a recent scientific report in Us today, researchers agree that oil reserves are limited and in fifty years will deplete them entirely.
In addition, the author should elaborate more on his reasoning and relation between oil crisis and infrastructure. Oil problems could happen even in times where there is enough black gold on the market and so innovation in oil technology and infrastructure could be a wise move. A vivid example of that is the war in Iraq where a political action changed the oil price around the world and led to oil shortages in some countries. Without innovation in energy saving technology a country could face serious economic and energy problem.
Lastly, there is a patent fact that oil is running out and we would inevitably face the energy crisis the author mentions. In the argument the writer falsely assumes that such circumstance would not happen and we should not worry for innovation and energy saving technology. However, a country which manages to satisfy its energy consumption with renewable sources like the sun, the wind force or the power of the waves, would have substantial advantage when oil is entirely depleted. So renewing energy infrastructure is probably not so irrelevant.
In sum, the author's reasoning lacks solid evidential support and presents questionable assumption. The writer fails to convince the reader with his flawed statement.
