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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument states that the claims of some politicians that we are on the brink of an energy crisis are misguided. I do not think that enough evidence is provided in arguing against this statement. The reasons given to prove that the politician's concerns are misguided are not looking at the bird's eye view of the situation. The argument assumes that if there is enough oil in reserve currently, we not headed for a crisis, which is not the case.
Energy crisis cannot just be measured by the fact that if there is reserve that will not run out any time soon, which is what the argument is based upon. The fact that we could eventually run out of these resources, is what is highlighted in the concerns as being on the brink of a crisis.
The argument fails to look at the bigger picture of the claims made by the politicians. Firstly, the fact that we have oil in reserve which can see us through any shortage does not imply that we are not using our resources at such a rapid rate that it could lead to over usage and ultimately the exhaustion of all natural resources of energy. Which would eventually lead to an energy crisis. Secondly, the argument also states that the supply of in-ground oil will not run out any time soon, which however, does indicate that it will eventually run out. If not sooner, then later. Hence, this leads to a crisis too.
Instead if the argument addresses that the energy needs can be more efficiently met by using more renewable sources of energy like hydro-energy or solar power, then it will help curb the chances of leading us to a crisis. The argument can be made stronger if the writer emphasizes that the usage can be brought under control by increasing awareness among people about how to use energy efficiently, by giving them better public transportation, reducing the costs of solar heaters, etc.
Also, the argument can be strengthened by adding that the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy does not need to be set aside if these industries can be upgraded to use the more renewable source of energy. These industries can be given the option to receive tax benefits if they use renewable sources of energy.
In conclusion, the claims of the politicians are valid and the argument should be made stronger by addressing the issues stated above.
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument states that the claims of some politicians that we are on the brink of an energy crisis are misguided. I do not think that enough evidence is provided in arguing against this statement. The reasons given to prove that the politician's concerns are misguided are not looking at the bird's eye view of the situation. The argument assumes that if there is enough oil in reserve currently, we not headed for a crisis, which is not the case.
Energy crisis cannot just be measured by the fact that if there is reserve that will not run out any time soon, which is what the argument is based upon. The fact that we could eventually run out of these resources, is what is highlighted in the concerns as being on the brink of a crisis.
The argument fails to look at the bigger picture of the claims made by the politicians. Firstly, the fact that we have oil in reserve which can see us through any shortage does not imply that we are not using our resources at such a rapid rate that it could lead to over usage and ultimately the exhaustion of all natural resources of energy. Which would eventually lead to an energy crisis. Secondly, the argument also states that the supply of in-ground oil will not run out any time soon, which however, does indicate that it will eventually run out. If not sooner, then later. Hence, this leads to a crisis too.
Instead if the argument addresses that the energy needs can be more efficiently met by using more renewable sources of energy like hydro-energy or solar power, then it will help curb the chances of leading us to a crisis. The argument can be made stronger if the writer emphasizes that the usage can be brought under control by increasing awareness among people about how to use energy efficiently, by giving them better public transportation, reducing the costs of solar heaters, etc.
Also, the argument can be strengthened by adding that the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy does not need to be set aside if these industries can be upgraded to use the more renewable source of energy. These industries can be given the option to receive tax benefits if they use renewable sources of energy.
In conclusion, the claims of the politicians are valid and the argument should be made stronger by addressing the issues stated above.
