-
xtremecoder007
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:32 am
- Thanked: 6 times
"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.
====================================================================================================
The point of contempt at hand is the claim of the politicians that there is no need to suspend the usage of technology and infrastructure of oil-based energy that has been in use for about is century due to the proposition that, the country is in the brink of an energy crisis. The assumptions and premises are not strongly built in this argument to derive the conclusion. There are the following flaws, addressing which the argument can become strong and reliable.
Firstly, there is no definition of the energy crisis provided in the argument. The argument does say that the country is on a brink of energy crisis but does not clearly say that the energy crisis is related to the oil and oil reserves. It is possible that the author is discussing about nuclear energy crisis or bio-energy crisis. Also, there are no specifications that indicate how far is the energy crisis is from starting, the argument states that the country is on the brink, but there is no quantitative measure that indicates the onset of crisis or the expected onset of the crisis.
Secondly, the politicians have claimed that there is enough oil reserve that can be used in case of production shortages and there is no danger of running short of the ground reserves. There is no quantitative information in this aspect as well. There is no concrete information on how long the energy crisis will last and how much oil is available to see through the crisis.
Thirdly, the Politicians are probably of the assumption that the oil usage will be constant over a period of time and there will not be any sudden need of oil. There is no concrete information about the current usage, how the usage will be in the future and how much oil is available for use. Also, there are no indicators that convey whether the usage will increase or decrease or stay constant.
Lastly, there is no mention of any claims to by the people, who propose that there is an energy crisis in the brink, to abandon the usage of old technology. The politicians are under the assumption that this is an implied statement given by the people when they conveyed about fears of energy crisis.
To sum it up all, the argument has a lot of assumptions that are not strongly built and need specific quantitative information to make it stronger. The probable time period of when the crisis might begin will add weight to the already available information. Specific quantitative information about the volume of the oil in reserves and volume of oil that can be produced in the specified time period will make the argument stand stronger. The statistics on the usage of the oil in the past, how it has been increasing or decreasing on a timely basis is needed. By consolidating all this quantitative information if available, the argument would be able to easily predict if the claims of the people, claims of the politicians and the conclusion of the argument stand strong.
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.
====================================================================================================
The point of contempt at hand is the claim of the politicians that there is no need to suspend the usage of technology and infrastructure of oil-based energy that has been in use for about is century due to the proposition that, the country is in the brink of an energy crisis. The assumptions and premises are not strongly built in this argument to derive the conclusion. There are the following flaws, addressing which the argument can become strong and reliable.
Firstly, there is no definition of the energy crisis provided in the argument. The argument does say that the country is on a brink of energy crisis but does not clearly say that the energy crisis is related to the oil and oil reserves. It is possible that the author is discussing about nuclear energy crisis or bio-energy crisis. Also, there are no specifications that indicate how far is the energy crisis is from starting, the argument states that the country is on the brink, but there is no quantitative measure that indicates the onset of crisis or the expected onset of the crisis.
Secondly, the politicians have claimed that there is enough oil reserve that can be used in case of production shortages and there is no danger of running short of the ground reserves. There is no quantitative information in this aspect as well. There is no concrete information on how long the energy crisis will last and how much oil is available to see through the crisis.
Thirdly, the Politicians are probably of the assumption that the oil usage will be constant over a period of time and there will not be any sudden need of oil. There is no concrete information about the current usage, how the usage will be in the future and how much oil is available for use. Also, there are no indicators that convey whether the usage will increase or decrease or stay constant.
Lastly, there is no mention of any claims to by the people, who propose that there is an energy crisis in the brink, to abandon the usage of old technology. The politicians are under the assumption that this is an implied statement given by the people when they conveyed about fears of energy crisis.
To sum it up all, the argument has a lot of assumptions that are not strongly built and need specific quantitative information to make it stronger. The probable time period of when the crisis might begin will add weight to the already available information. Specific quantitative information about the volume of the oil in reserves and volume of oil that can be produced in the specified time period will make the argument stand stronger. The statistics on the usage of the oil in the past, how it has been increasing or decreasing on a timely basis is needed. By consolidating all this quantitative information if available, the argument would be able to easily predict if the claims of the people, claims of the politicians and the conclusion of the argument stand strong.
