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 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 that the claims of the politicians that we are in energy crisis are misguided fails to consider certain important parameters before reaching the conclusion and is therefore not very sound and convincing . The conclusion that there is no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy is thus based on the argument which is flawed .
While making the argument , it is assumed that ideal conditions will prevail throughout and there will be no changes in the demand and supply in the future . They fail to consider that with increased inventions in the future , the need for natural resources is bound to increase and the existing reserves of oil will not be able to fulfill the demand . No risk analysis has been done considering the fact that if our reserves are affected by any of the natural calamities , we will not have any other option for natural resources .
There is no consideration given to new and efficient methods of oil discovery which will be economical as well as more environment friendly . It has also not been considered that the depleting natural resources will cease to exist one day and it is our moral responsibility to conserve it for our younger generations .
The technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based systems are slowing eating up all the oil that we have in reserves today and if we do not have a method to replenish that , it will soon end and then we will have no other option left but to look out for other resources. Therefore , it is wise to use the oil-supply presently and at the same time look for other avenues for sources of energy .
As of now , since the points above are ignored , the argument is not so sound and persuasive. However , if these points are considered and we identify new energy sources or methods to replenish the existing energy sources , the argument made above will be considered more convincing .
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 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 that the claims of the politicians that we are in energy crisis are misguided fails to consider certain important parameters before reaching the conclusion and is therefore not very sound and convincing . The conclusion that there is no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy is thus based on the argument which is flawed .
While making the argument , it is assumed that ideal conditions will prevail throughout and there will be no changes in the demand and supply in the future . They fail to consider that with increased inventions in the future , the need for natural resources is bound to increase and the existing reserves of oil will not be able to fulfill the demand . No risk analysis has been done considering the fact that if our reserves are affected by any of the natural calamities , we will not have any other option for natural resources .
There is no consideration given to new and efficient methods of oil discovery which will be economical as well as more environment friendly . It has also not been considered that the depleting natural resources will cease to exist one day and it is our moral responsibility to conserve it for our younger generations .
The technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based systems are slowing eating up all the oil that we have in reserves today and if we do not have a method to replenish that , it will soon end and then we will have no other option left but to look out for other resources. Therefore , it is wise to use the oil-supply presently and at the same time look for other avenues for sources of energy .
As of now , since the points above are ignored , the argument is not so sound and persuasive. However , if these points are considered and we identify new energy sources or methods to replenish the existing energy sources , the argument made above will be considered more convincing .
