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:
This argument intends to deliver the message that humanity is not on the brink of facing an energy crisis. The argument is short, concise and well written. But despite the conciseness and clarity of the the argument, it fails to deliver the original intended meaning. There are lots questionable premises and logical fallacies that need to be discussed here.
First of all, the argument claims that some politicians are misguided in terms of thinking that we are on the brink of an energy crisis, but what are the premises behind this conclusion? no supporting premises behind this conclusion are discussed. Nothing is stated showing either how politician reached to this conclusion or why the writer thinks that politicians are wrong in thinking so.
Second, passage stated that we have enough oil reserves to see us through any production shortage and the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out any time soon. It is a very general statement, without figures this statement is of no value at all. Author doesn't state what type of production shortage we can go through. Production shortages can last from few hours to years, making this statement of no value. Moreover he failed to mention for how long we could have the continuous supply of in-ground oil. Author should state at what rate the oil is pumped out on daily basis and how much reserve we have in order to clear his point. Pumping out oil depends on the demand of oil and the author totally failed to discuss this factor. The author may be right that we have a good supply of in-ground oil for the coming years but at what rate? what if the demand increases exponentially? No such factor is discussed.
Third, the author failed to back up his point that we have enough in-ground oil by not providing any source of such information. He should have stated what is the source of this information. Is there any recent government experiment or survey conducted to find out the current state of oil reserves?
At the end, we can say that by not discussing any numbers, any proof of stated information or any premises for such assumption, the author did a very poor job in delivering the massage that we should continue to build our technology and infrastructure for another century based on oil-based energy. If the author has discussed the above mentioned points, this argument would have a well written as well as a well communicated message.
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:
This argument intends to deliver the message that humanity is not on the brink of facing an energy crisis. The argument is short, concise and well written. But despite the conciseness and clarity of the the argument, it fails to deliver the original intended meaning. There are lots questionable premises and logical fallacies that need to be discussed here.
First of all, the argument claims that some politicians are misguided in terms of thinking that we are on the brink of an energy crisis, but what are the premises behind this conclusion? no supporting premises behind this conclusion are discussed. Nothing is stated showing either how politician reached to this conclusion or why the writer thinks that politicians are wrong in thinking so.
Second, passage stated that we have enough oil reserves to see us through any production shortage and the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out any time soon. It is a very general statement, without figures this statement is of no value at all. Author doesn't state what type of production shortage we can go through. Production shortages can last from few hours to years, making this statement of no value. Moreover he failed to mention for how long we could have the continuous supply of in-ground oil. Author should state at what rate the oil is pumped out on daily basis and how much reserve we have in order to clear his point. Pumping out oil depends on the demand of oil and the author totally failed to discuss this factor. The author may be right that we have a good supply of in-ground oil for the coming years but at what rate? what if the demand increases exponentially? No such factor is discussed.
Third, the author failed to back up his point that we have enough in-ground oil by not providing any source of such information. He should have stated what is the source of this information. Is there any recent government experiment or survey conducted to find out the current state of oil reserves?
At the end, we can say that by not discussing any numbers, any proof of stated information or any premises for such assumption, the author did a very poor job in delivering the massage that we should continue to build our technology and infrastructure for another century based on oil-based energy. If the author has discussed the above mentioned points, this argument would have a well written as well as a well communicated message.
