Please evaluate my essays... I have exam in a weeks time...

ESSAY QUESTION:
"Poor health and high stress levels diminish the productivity of today's office workers. In order to maximize profits, companies need to provide white-collar employees with free exercise facilities and free wellness classes."

In your opinion, how accurate is the view expressed above? Use reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading to develop your position.

MY RESPONSE:
With nations becoming industrialized and with drastic changes in our lifestyle today, people are experiencing high stress levels and heath problems than it was a few centuries ago. On one hand the improvements in technology and vast research, are reducing the mortality rate, the lifstyle changes in lives of people such as work culture, stress levels at work, food habits are increasing the chances of people suffering from diseases such as heart attack. In the above statement, the author claims that poor health and high stress levels reduce the total productivity of office workers. The author suggests that the companies should provide its white collar employees with free exercise facilities and wellness classes. By taking these steps, the author suggests that the overall health and stress levels will diminish and hence will result in increased productivity and maximize the company's profits. I totally agree with the author's claim.

The primary reason for supporting his claim is that exercising will reduce the stress levels and improve health. Various health magazines and TV health shows often suggest white collar employees to atleast do exercise for half an hour a day. Companies in China have realized this and have enforced an half an hour exercise program for the company employees during the lunch hour. The Chinese company's productivity level compared to companies in other countries are way ahead. This alone should propel companies to provide free exercise facilities to its employees

Apart from exercising wellness classes will give awareness to employees about the way to handle pressure in their lives. The ever increasing demand for wellness classes in today's world cannot be challenged. In my company "Collabera", a wellness program was organized. After the program, the cheerness and the joy among the employees who attended the program increased drastically. These employed were more interested and coordinated well among each other, resulting in increased productivity and successful delivery of the project.

In sum, I would agree with the author's point that free exercise and free wellness classes should be incorporated in the day's schedule of an white-collar employee. By doing so, the company not only benifits itself but also helpts employees to keep their mind and body healthy.

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:
Depletion of non-renewable resources such as oil is a major topic of the world today. With industrialized nations such as USA spending even more energy than before and with developing and non-developed nations trying to match much the economy of the developed nations, oil consumption has increased drastically. In the statement above, the author claims that there is no need to be concerned over energy crisis and hence set aside the technology and infrastructure of a centruy of oil based energy. In putting forth his claim, he presents the evidence that we have enough oil in reserve and enough supply of in-ground oil. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument. Based solely on the evidence the auther offers, we can't accept his argument as valid.

The primary issue with the argument lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author simply claims that there is enough oil in reserve and enough supply of in-ground oil without giving any concrete basis such as a research result or appropriate information to support his claim. What if the oil in reserve together with in-ground oil could last for only a few decades? Without proper study or research data, the support for his conclusion appears illegitimate, rendering his conclusion unacceptable.

In addition, the author makes unwarranted assumptions. First, the author takes the present condition as the basis for his claim that the oil reserve may last for long time. If the consumption of oil increases exponentially, the oil reserve may decrease drastically. This would make the conclusion fall apart. Secondly, the author assumes a perfect world. If the oil rich countries go against the world or reduce the supply of oil to the rest of the world, energy crisis is sure to happen. The auther weakens his argument by making such assumptions.

Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, the author can improve his argument significantly. The auther can provide a research study to substantiate his claim that oil reserve will last for a long time. He can further provide evidence about harmony and pacts between oil rich countries such as Iraq and Iran with the other contries to support that Oil supply will always exist. Any evidence regarding finding of new oil wells which could last for centuries can further strengthen his argument.

In sum, the author's illogical argument based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions renders the conclusion invalid. Hence the argument is likely to convince very few people.

This topic has expert replies