AWA ESSAYS: Analyze Argument
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 above states that the claims of politicians that we are on the brink of energy crisis are misguided. His argument is based on the reason that we have enough oil 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. The above reason is not exhaustive for an energy crisis to occur. The author fails to analyse other reasons for energy crisis such as the increase in demand or shortage of oil supply from sources other than in-ground oil. Thus the argument is flawed.
Firstly, author fails to consider that the demand of oil could increase in the near future which could result in shortage of energy even if the supply of oil remains constant. This would result in widening the demand supply gap and hence can result in energy shortage. Had the author explained how the demand of oil is not expected to rise in the future or how the increasing demand of oil will not lead to widening of demand supply gap, the argument would have seemed stronger.
Secondly , author bases his argument that production shortage will be met on the assumption that in-ground oil dominates the production of oil and no other source of oil can result in production shortage. It is possible that while the in-ground supply of oil remains a constant supplier of oil , supply of other sources of oil is run out. Therefore this also may lead to supply being lessened and the demand supply gap hence widened. Had the author taken this into consideration, the argument would have seemed stronger.
Also, he fails to analyse any other factors which may lead to hampering of oil supply. For example, a natural calamity like flood or earthquake could be expected in near future which could damage oil supplies. Had he explained that no other factors govern the supply and demand of oil , he would have strengthened the argument.
As the author fails to warrant the above mentioned assumptions that how the demand supply gap can only be affected by the reasons mentioned by him, the argument is seriously flawed. Warranting the assumptions above would make the argument stronger.
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 above states that the claims of politicians that we are on the brink of energy crisis are misguided. His argument is based on the reason that we have enough oil 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. The above reason is not exhaustive for an energy crisis to occur. The author fails to analyse other reasons for energy crisis such as the increase in demand or shortage of oil supply from sources other than in-ground oil. Thus the argument is flawed.
Firstly, author fails to consider that the demand of oil could increase in the near future which could result in shortage of energy even if the supply of oil remains constant. This would result in widening the demand supply gap and hence can result in energy shortage. Had the author explained how the demand of oil is not expected to rise in the future or how the increasing demand of oil will not lead to widening of demand supply gap, the argument would have seemed stronger.
Secondly , author bases his argument that production shortage will be met on the assumption that in-ground oil dominates the production of oil and no other source of oil can result in production shortage. It is possible that while the in-ground supply of oil remains a constant supplier of oil , supply of other sources of oil is run out. Therefore this also may lead to supply being lessened and the demand supply gap hence widened. Had the author taken this into consideration, the argument would have seemed stronger.
Also, he fails to analyse any other factors which may lead to hampering of oil supply. For example, a natural calamity like flood or earthquake could be expected in near future which could damage oil supplies. Had he explained that no other factors govern the supply and demand of oil , he would have strengthened the argument.
As the author fails to warrant the above mentioned assumptions that how the demand supply gap can only be affected by the reasons mentioned by him, the argument is seriously flawed. Warranting the assumptions above would make the argument stronger.
