"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 author in this argument states that there is no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy because there is sufficient oil in reserve and the in ground oil is in no danger of running out. The author refutes the claim made by some politicians that we are on the brink of an energy crisis. However, the authors argument is not persuasive and has some questionable assumptions.

First, the author assumes that there is enough oil in reserve. However on what information has the author based this assumption is not clear. With the increased demand and usage of oil in several production and industrial establishments, there is an increase in the global demand for oil and it is possible that there may not be enough oil in reserve that would see us through any production shortage.

In addition, the author assumes that the in ground oil is plentiful and cannot run out of supply. Once again the author has no basis in making such an assumption. There is no information regarding the quantity of oil that remains in ground. In contrast, as more infrastructure runs on oil based energy, it is natural that the level of oil will decline.


Furthermore, the author assumes that even if industries continue to run on oil based energy, there will be no threat to the oil supply. The author optimistically concludes that industries can continue to use oil based energy as there is no threat to the oil supply. In contrary, it is logical that when more oil is consumed, the more in ground oil is extracted and lesser the supply.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically convincing, the author would have to validate the claim that the oil supply is plentiful and provide information regarding the percentage used with regard to the amount available.