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 presented by the editor is not very convincing. The editor makes no effort to substantiate his stance and just presents a very general criticism about an issue.
While he does clearly outline the important points which need to be analysed to term the situation as an energy crisis, he fails to provide hard core evidence about his arguments. It would have helped if he would have given published numbers of oil reserves held by the country alongwith the average demand for oil on a periodical basis. In absence of those numbers, it is difficult to analyse from an objective point of view, whether the editor's claims are accurate.
Also, the editor's stance about adequate supply of in-ground oil is weak. The editor incorrectly assumes that in ground oil will be immediately usable if need arises. Here, he misses the point that in-ground oil exploration and extraction takes years before being made usable. Also, oil exploration takes a substantial amount of investment in terms of technology and infrastructure. Hence in order to provide for energy after the next few years, exploration and related activites have to start early on in the process.
The editor correctly identifies needs of oil in case of production shortages like during an oil spill. However, it would have also helped if he identified how much of the oil consumption is satisfied by domestic production and does the country have to import any of its oil needs. If the country imports oil, factors like global economic conditions, currency fluctuations etc. also need to be considered to clearly analyse the country's situation vis-a-vis the above mentioned factors. These factors are not considered by the editor.
In conclusion, the editor's argument needs to supported by published numbers of oil production, demand and supply in order to arrive at a proper analysis of the country's true position on oil based energy. In absence of the aforesaid evidence, it is difficult to be convinced by just a general criticism on an issue.
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 presented by the editor is not very convincing. The editor makes no effort to substantiate his stance and just presents a very general criticism about an issue.
While he does clearly outline the important points which need to be analysed to term the situation as an energy crisis, he fails to provide hard core evidence about his arguments. It would have helped if he would have given published numbers of oil reserves held by the country alongwith the average demand for oil on a periodical basis. In absence of those numbers, it is difficult to analyse from an objective point of view, whether the editor's claims are accurate.
Also, the editor's stance about adequate supply of in-ground oil is weak. The editor incorrectly assumes that in ground oil will be immediately usable if need arises. Here, he misses the point that in-ground oil exploration and extraction takes years before being made usable. Also, oil exploration takes a substantial amount of investment in terms of technology and infrastructure. Hence in order to provide for energy after the next few years, exploration and related activites have to start early on in the process.
The editor correctly identifies needs of oil in case of production shortages like during an oil spill. However, it would have also helped if he identified how much of the oil consumption is satisfied by domestic production and does the country have to import any of its oil needs. If the country imports oil, factors like global economic conditions, currency fluctuations etc. also need to be considered to clearly analyse the country's situation vis-a-vis the above mentioned factors. These factors are not considered by the editor.
In conclusion, the editor's argument needs to supported by published numbers of oil production, demand and supply in order to arrive at a proper analysis of the country's true position on oil based energy. In absence of the aforesaid evidence, it is difficult to be convinced by just a general criticism on an issue.
