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 concludes that politicians' claim on energy crisis is misguided. It states that "we" have enough oil reserve for the near future. I believe the argument has several flaws.
First of all, the argument makes a factual error. While politicians claim that we as a country are in energy crisis, the argument claims that we have enough oil in reserve. The fact is US only has 25% of the oil reserve of entire oil consumption and imports rest from foreign countries especially middle eastern countries.
Secondly, the argument fails to look at the long term view by stating "oil is in no danger of running out any time soon". After John F Kennedy had announced that we would send a man to the moon, it did take around 10 years for Neil Armstrong to land on the moon. Similarly, we need a strategic view on the energy issue.
Thirdly, the argument assumes that politicians are looking at a full replacement of oil by stating "There is no need to set oil based energy aside. ". Alternate energy sources like Wild, Solar, Nuclear energy can be used in conjunction with oil.
Overall, by moving from oil as primary source of energy to oil as one of several sources of energy, we will better protect our environment by reducing carbon emission, protect national security by not sending money to gulf countries.
For the above reasons, I believe the newspaper editorial's claim fails to consider several key aspects before making the claim. The conclusion could have strengthened had they provide data to support how much oil reserve we as a country have vis-a-vis our consumption. Also, the argument could have provided how far can we go without an alternate source of energy.
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 concludes that politicians' claim on energy crisis is misguided. It states that "we" have enough oil reserve for the near future. I believe the argument has several flaws.
First of all, the argument makes a factual error. While politicians claim that we as a country are in energy crisis, the argument claims that we have enough oil in reserve. The fact is US only has 25% of the oil reserve of entire oil consumption and imports rest from foreign countries especially middle eastern countries.
Secondly, the argument fails to look at the long term view by stating "oil is in no danger of running out any time soon". After John F Kennedy had announced that we would send a man to the moon, it did take around 10 years for Neil Armstrong to land on the moon. Similarly, we need a strategic view on the energy issue.
Thirdly, the argument assumes that politicians are looking at a full replacement of oil by stating "There is no need to set oil based energy aside. ". Alternate energy sources like Wild, Solar, Nuclear energy can be used in conjunction with oil.
Overall, by moving from oil as primary source of energy to oil as one of several sources of energy, we will better protect our environment by reducing carbon emission, protect national security by not sending money to gulf countries.
For the above reasons, I believe the newspaper editorial's claim fails to consider several key aspects before making the claim. The conclusion could have strengthened had they provide data to support how much oil reserve we as a country have vis-a-vis our consumption. Also, the argument could have provided how far can we go without an alternate source of energy.
