-
parul9
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:22 am
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:2 members
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.
RESPONSE:
The argument presented above attempts to downplay the impending energy crisis that some politicians have also claimed. Needless to say the argument is not a well reasoned one and fails to convince for the simple reason that it is not supported by any facts by the author.
The argument starts with the assertion that "the claims of some politicians that we are on the brink of an energy crisis are misguided", however, it makes no attempt to explain exactly how the misguidance is achieved by these politicians. There is no mention of the interests of these politicians in making such claims or exactly how they will benefit by misguiding the general public with such claims. The argument goes on to say that there is "enough" oil reserve to see us through "any" production shortage. Words like "enough" and "any" are highly subjective and cannot be used to prove anything concretely. The argument goes on to state that the supply of "in-ground" oil is in no danger of running out "any time soon". This perhaps is the weakest part of the argument, for in a way, it helps in strengthening the very claims of the politicians that the argument is set to refute. By making such a point, the author unwittingly concedes that the politicians are right in their claims of an energy crisis being on its way, albeit, the urgency of the crisis is debatable still. Also, "any time soon" is a subjective word like "enough" and "any", and cannot be used for making assessments of such grave consequences like energy crisis.
The greatest weakening aspect of this argument is the fact that there is no supporting evidence or factual data provided. It is at best, the author's personal and largely unfounded opinion about the current energy situation. And hence, it is not enough to support the final conclusion of the argument that there is no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century oil-based energy. The argument could be easily countered by any fact or statistical data about the current oil reserves, future energy demand or an extrapolation of the years that the oil reserves will last based on current consumption.
The argument could have been strengthened if there was evidence provided to show that the claims of the politicians were indeed misguided. Perhaps, a few of them were part of a business conglomorate working on a so far untested/unsuccessful alternate energy resources. The argument could have been structured in a more balanced way also by mentioning some details about the existing alternate energy resources and their challenges. And most importantly, the argument must have had concrete statistical data to prove its claims and support its conclusion.
This is my first argument analysis. Any tips/tricks would be helpful!
Also,what score would this fall in?
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.
RESPONSE:
The argument presented above attempts to downplay the impending energy crisis that some politicians have also claimed. Needless to say the argument is not a well reasoned one and fails to convince for the simple reason that it is not supported by any facts by the author.
The argument starts with the assertion that "the claims of some politicians that we are on the brink of an energy crisis are misguided", however, it makes no attempt to explain exactly how the misguidance is achieved by these politicians. There is no mention of the interests of these politicians in making such claims or exactly how they will benefit by misguiding the general public with such claims. The argument goes on to say that there is "enough" oil reserve to see us through "any" production shortage. Words like "enough" and "any" are highly subjective and cannot be used to prove anything concretely. The argument goes on to state that the supply of "in-ground" oil is in no danger of running out "any time soon". This perhaps is the weakest part of the argument, for in a way, it helps in strengthening the very claims of the politicians that the argument is set to refute. By making such a point, the author unwittingly concedes that the politicians are right in their claims of an energy crisis being on its way, albeit, the urgency of the crisis is debatable still. Also, "any time soon" is a subjective word like "enough" and "any", and cannot be used for making assessments of such grave consequences like energy crisis.
The greatest weakening aspect of this argument is the fact that there is no supporting evidence or factual data provided. It is at best, the author's personal and largely unfounded opinion about the current energy situation. And hence, it is not enough to support the final conclusion of the argument that there is no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century oil-based energy. The argument could be easily countered by any fact or statistical data about the current oil reserves, future energy demand or an extrapolation of the years that the oil reserves will last based on current consumption.
The argument could have been strengthened if there was evidence provided to show that the claims of the politicians were indeed misguided. Perhaps, a few of them were part of a business conglomorate working on a so far untested/unsuccessful alternate energy resources. The argument could have been structured in a more balanced way also by mentioning some details about the existing alternate energy resources and their challenges. And most importantly, the argument must have had concrete statistical data to prove its claims and support its conclusion.
This is my first argument analysis. Any tips/tricks would be helpful!
Also,what score would this fall in?
