"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:
This newspaper editorial presents a conclusion based on specific claims without providing the statistical evidence required to support these claims. Firstly, the author does not provide any specific details around the kind of production shortage that the current oil reserves could sustain. A nation's oil reserve may not necessarily have factored in the contingency oil requirements during the time of national emergencies such as wars and international conflicts. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, the author does not clarify how long the supply of in-ground oil would not run out. Given the long term vision alluded by the argument, it is critical to qualify "any time soon" before rejecting any potential need to set aside technology using oil-based energy. Furthermore, the author does not consider the potential increase in demand for oil which could lead to the exhaustion of supplies much sooner than "any time soon".
In addition, even if each of the author's claims were true, the conclusion would still be based on certain assumptions, which based on contents of this editorial, have not been validated. The author seems to assume that the energy crisis is purely based on the oil supply and demand. The environmental effects of relying on an energy source such as oil may very well have contributed to the energy crisis. The author also assumes that the energy crisis is not a result of a nation's efforts to reduce reliance on oil-based energy from a risk management perspective. Today, oil is a highly traded commodity defining the silhouettes of international and national economies. The lesser a nation's dependence on oil-based energy, the lesser the risk exposure to an economic crisis drive by oil supply and demand around the world.
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:
This newspaper editorial presents a conclusion based on specific claims without providing the statistical evidence required to support these claims. Firstly, the author does not provide any specific details around the kind of production shortage that the current oil reserves could sustain. A nation's oil reserve may not necessarily have factored in the contingency oil requirements during the time of national emergencies such as wars and international conflicts. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, the author does not clarify how long the supply of in-ground oil would not run out. Given the long term vision alluded by the argument, it is critical to qualify "any time soon" before rejecting any potential need to set aside technology using oil-based energy. Furthermore, the author does not consider the potential increase in demand for oil which could lead to the exhaustion of supplies much sooner than "any time soon".
In addition, even if each of the author's claims were true, the conclusion would still be based on certain assumptions, which based on contents of this editorial, have not been validated. The author seems to assume that the energy crisis is purely based on the oil supply and demand. The environmental effects of relying on an energy source such as oil may very well have contributed to the energy crisis. The author also assumes that the energy crisis is not a result of a nation's efforts to reduce reliance on oil-based energy from a risk management perspective. Today, oil is a highly traded commodity defining the silhouettes of international and national economies. The lesser a nation's dependence on oil-based energy, the lesser the risk exposure to an economic crisis drive by oil supply and demand around the world.
