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.
Response:
The editor of a newspaper refutes the claim of his country's politicians that their country is on the brink of an energy crisis. The editor states that not only do they have enough oil reserves to see them through any potential production shortage, but the reserves are also not in any danger of running out soon. Based on these claims, the editor goes on to suggest that there is, therefore, no need to invest in technology and infrastructure for alternative sources for the next hundred years.
The editor makes a compelling claim in his article, but fails to substantiate his claim about the oil reserves with proper scientific evidence. He does not quote any new research on the subject matter that suggests that the oil reserves are aplenty and not in danger of running out soon. Its difficult to accept the editor's opinion on face value since it lacks any basis.
Secondly, the author does not address certain important factors, such as the growth of future estimated demand of oil, that should be considered before coming to this conclusion. Are his claims based on a constant demand for oil for the years to come? Will the future needs grow? If yes, then at what rate? It shall be important to estimate and evaluate growth of vehicles in the country in the coming years, rise in population etc. Without the knowledge of these factors, the reader is bound to remain slightly skeptical about the editor's suggestions.
Another point worth evaluating would be the country's revenue stream from the exports of oil. Is the country an oil exporter? If yes, then the country may, for economic gains, choose to sell oil to other nations possibly leaving lesser oil for its population to consume.
The editor's argument about not setting aside investment for alternative sources would be seriously weakened if it is found that the investment would be capable of producing cheaper, cleaner and abundant sources of alternative energies. A cheaper and more environmental friendly energy source will benefit the nation as a whole.
The editor's claims could be strengthened if he throws more light on the matters discussed above. In absence of any proofs, his claims do not seem believable.
"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.
Response:
The editor of a newspaper refutes the claim of his country's politicians that their country is on the brink of an energy crisis. The editor states that not only do they have enough oil reserves to see them through any potential production shortage, but the reserves are also not in any danger of running out soon. Based on these claims, the editor goes on to suggest that there is, therefore, no need to invest in technology and infrastructure for alternative sources for the next hundred years.
The editor makes a compelling claim in his article, but fails to substantiate his claim about the oil reserves with proper scientific evidence. He does not quote any new research on the subject matter that suggests that the oil reserves are aplenty and not in danger of running out soon. Its difficult to accept the editor's opinion on face value since it lacks any basis.
Secondly, the author does not address certain important factors, such as the growth of future estimated demand of oil, that should be considered before coming to this conclusion. Are his claims based on a constant demand for oil for the years to come? Will the future needs grow? If yes, then at what rate? It shall be important to estimate and evaluate growth of vehicles in the country in the coming years, rise in population etc. Without the knowledge of these factors, the reader is bound to remain slightly skeptical about the editor's suggestions.
Another point worth evaluating would be the country's revenue stream from the exports of oil. Is the country an oil exporter? If yes, then the country may, for economic gains, choose to sell oil to other nations possibly leaving lesser oil for its population to consume.
The editor's argument about not setting aside investment for alternative sources would be seriously weakened if it is found that the investment would be capable of producing cheaper, cleaner and abundant sources of alternative energies. A cheaper and more environmental friendly energy source will benefit the nation as a whole.
The editor's claims could be strengthened if he throws more light on the matters discussed above. In absence of any proofs, his claims do not seem believable.
Thanks,
Bharat.
Bharat.
