I am taking the GMAT in about a week, and for some reason, I am extremely worried about the AWA. I've read from MGMAT guides that I shouldn't be, but I want to make sure I am doing well enough so I can dedicate these last few days to the more important stuff. I've read the Manhattan guide and I think it has helped me a lot, but I would really appreciate it if someone could provide any tips and constructive criticism of this attempt and estimate a possible score. Thank you very much in advance.
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 authors states that some politicians who believe that a major energy problem is imminent are incorrect and that conserving the technology and infrastructure of energy derived from one hundred years' worth of oil is unnecessary. However, the author's argument is very flawed, as it is based on misguided assumptions and the evidence does not logically support the conclusion.
First, the author claims that the oil reserves will be enough to outlast any production shortages. However, the author assumes that the usage of oil will not increase in the future. If the usage does increase, the oil in reserve might not last through the shortages. The author must provide accurate evidence that the energy usage is not expected to increase, as this will strengthen the argument.
Second, the argument states that the supply of in-ground oil is not at all likely to run out any time soon. However, the author does not provide any evidence to substantiate this assumption. Furthermore, the author assumes that the in-ground oil is accessible. It may be possible that there is plenty of oil in the ground, but the location is unknown or that it may be impossible to extract. In this case, the supply of in-ground oil might not be enough to prevent any energy crisis in the near future. If the author were to provide facts about the accessibility of the in-ground oil, it would strengthen the claim that the supply of this oil is enough to last many years.
Also, the author overlooks another crucial factor that could case an energy crisis: price. Even if the oil reserves and in-ground oil supply are enough to last a century, the price of oil could increase to the point it causes a crisis. Oil prices have been drastically increasing in recent years due to the decreasing supply of oil. As the supply decreases even more, the prices will be outrageously high, preventing most of the world from purchasing and using oil. Since the world relies so much on oil, a crisis will be guaranteed. Therefore, finding other sources of energy and conserving the oil-based energy will be necessary. The author must provide evidence that the price will not skyrocket to the point the oil market is endangered, as such evidence can improve the author's claims.
The author concluded that setting aside technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-bases energy is not needed and that politicians prediction an energy crisis are mistaken. However, the author's argument relies on faulty assumptions and evidence that does not flawlessly support the somewhat extreme conclusion. The author must provide much more evidence to account for the gaps in logic and assumptions in order to strengthen the argument.
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 authors states that some politicians who believe that a major energy problem is imminent are incorrect and that conserving the technology and infrastructure of energy derived from one hundred years' worth of oil is unnecessary. However, the author's argument is very flawed, as it is based on misguided assumptions and the evidence does not logically support the conclusion.
First, the author claims that the oil reserves will be enough to outlast any production shortages. However, the author assumes that the usage of oil will not increase in the future. If the usage does increase, the oil in reserve might not last through the shortages. The author must provide accurate evidence that the energy usage is not expected to increase, as this will strengthen the argument.
Second, the argument states that the supply of in-ground oil is not at all likely to run out any time soon. However, the author does not provide any evidence to substantiate this assumption. Furthermore, the author assumes that the in-ground oil is accessible. It may be possible that there is plenty of oil in the ground, but the location is unknown or that it may be impossible to extract. In this case, the supply of in-ground oil might not be enough to prevent any energy crisis in the near future. If the author were to provide facts about the accessibility of the in-ground oil, it would strengthen the claim that the supply of this oil is enough to last many years.
Also, the author overlooks another crucial factor that could case an energy crisis: price. Even if the oil reserves and in-ground oil supply are enough to last a century, the price of oil could increase to the point it causes a crisis. Oil prices have been drastically increasing in recent years due to the decreasing supply of oil. As the supply decreases even more, the prices will be outrageously high, preventing most of the world from purchasing and using oil. Since the world relies so much on oil, a crisis will be guaranteed. Therefore, finding other sources of energy and conserving the oil-based energy will be necessary. The author must provide evidence that the price will not skyrocket to the point the oil market is endangered, as such evidence can improve the author's claims.
The author concluded that setting aside technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-bases energy is not needed and that politicians prediction an energy crisis are mistaken. However, the author's argument relies on faulty assumptions and evidence that does not flawlessly support the somewhat extreme conclusion. The author must provide much more evidence to account for the gaps in logic and assumptions in order to strengthen the argument.
