GMAT Essays (AWA)

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.

Hi Brent,

Can you please help me to review this essay as well -

In the preceding argument, The author cites 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 and concludes that there is no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy. On the very first look, this seems to be an obvious solution but on a closer look, the author argument is not only based on quesitonable assumption and premises but also flawed as it stands.

The primary issue with author's reasoning lies with the unsubstantiated premise. The author cites that we have enough oil in reserve and the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out any time soon. But she has not provided any information on the "demand of oil" in the near future. It may possible that with currenty supply of oil, it is not possible to meet the current demand or expected future demand. Considering this scenario the claims of some politicians that we are on brink of energy crisis might be correct, so we may need set aside the technology and infrastructure and look for more efficient options. Overall, the author's premises, basis of her argument, lack any legitimate support and render her conclusion invalid.

The secondary issue with author's reasoning lies with the unsupported assumption. The author has made a direct assumption that the energy crisis refered by politicians is related to only oil-based energy crisis. This assumption is questionable as energy itself is a wide area and contains several sectors such as nuclear energy, wind energy, solar energy, oil-based energy, coal energy etc. It is possible that oil-based energy sector constituates a small proportion of overall energy sector. In this context, the whole argument becomes weak. In addition to this, the author makes another assumption that current technology and infrastructure are efficient enough and can not be further improve for higher efficiency. The author makes her argument vulnerable by making questionable assumptions and fails to provide a link between overall energy sector and oil-based energy sector.

Although the author has serveral key issues with her argument, it is not to say that argument is without base. The author may be right to say that if current oil reserve is large enough to provide sufficient supply of oil, we don't need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy, but in order to put her point effectively the author has to look on the demand side of oil as well and consider all possible fluctuation that might happen with demand-supply of oil. In addition to this, the author has to explicitly provide a link between energy sector as a whole and oil-based energy sector. Overall, there are serveral key issues with argument at present but with proper evidence and support, the author can largely improve her argument.

In sum, the author argument is weak as it stands. If author wishes to change the view of readers, she has to largely restructure her argument. She has to provide key evidences that can corroborate her premise. moreover, she needs to state her assumptions in a better manner. Withouth these improvement, the argument is likely to convince few people.