|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
20 Jun 2017, 18:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello GMAT club!
This is my first post and I hoped you could assist me with my first AWA
I'm not a native english speaker and thought I would rely on the chineseburned template to help me structure my text a bit. Please give an honest rating. Many thanks!!
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."
The newspaper editorial claims that "the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out any time soon" and that we are, therefore, far from being on "the brink of an energy crisis" as some politicians may claim. As a result, the editorial makes the conclusion that there is no need at this time to "set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy". However, stated in this way, the argument fails to mention key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated and also conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the editorial also relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that we have enough oil reserves at this time to see us through any shortage of energy. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any ways. In fact, the author gives no proof that we won't be running out of oil supply by the end of the century. The argument also fails to mention any of the negative impact that oil-based energy have on the atmosphere, and thus fails to recognize the utility, efficiency and potential of renewable energy on preserving our planet. For instance, several cities in Europe, such as in the Netherlands, now fully operate solely based on clean energies. Furthermore, companies such as SolarCity and Tesla have recently shown the world that renewable and clean energy can be as efficient and profitable, if not more, as oil-based energy. As such, the argument is lacking evidence and could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated any proof stating that there is in fact enough in-ground oil supply to see us through the next century and, perhaps more importantly, that this source of energy is the most optimal in terms of cost of production, consumption and environmental impact.
Second, the argument claims that there is currently no danger of running out of energy any time soon. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the editorial does not mention any of the current rate of usage of energy. In fact, if we expect developing countries to use as much energy as developed ones in the next 10 or 20 years, then one would expect to see the supply of energy increasingly diminish over the next 50 years to the point where we might run out of energy. If the argument had provided evidence the current demand for energy is expected to maintain stable over the next century, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that there is no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy. From this statement again it is not clear how oil-based energy is the most efficient form of energy to fulfill our current demand. Is oil-based energy really the most efficient and most economical form of energy? Without a convincing answer to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. If the editorial had clearly mentioned all relevant facts pertaining to the current demand for energy, the impact of oil-based energy on earth and compared oil-based energy efficiency to other forms of energy (eg: renewable energy), then the argument would have been considerably strengthened. In fact, in order to assess the full merit of a situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and therefore open to debate.
This is my first post and I hoped you could assist me with my first AWA
I'm not a native english speaker and thought I would rely on the chineseburned template to help me structure my text a bit. Please give an honest rating. Many thanks!! 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."
The newspaper editorial claims that "the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out any time soon" and that we are, therefore, far from being on "the brink of an energy crisis" as some politicians may claim. As a result, the editorial makes the conclusion that there is no need at this time to "set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy". However, stated in this way, the argument fails to mention key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated and also conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the editorial also relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that we have enough oil reserves at this time to see us through any shortage of energy. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any ways. In fact, the author gives no proof that we won't be running out of oil supply by the end of the century. The argument also fails to mention any of the negative impact that oil-based energy have on the atmosphere, and thus fails to recognize the utility, efficiency and potential of renewable energy on preserving our planet. For instance, several cities in Europe, such as in the Netherlands, now fully operate solely based on clean energies. Furthermore, companies such as SolarCity and Tesla have recently shown the world that renewable and clean energy can be as efficient and profitable, if not more, as oil-based energy. As such, the argument is lacking evidence and could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated any proof stating that there is in fact enough in-ground oil supply to see us through the next century and, perhaps more importantly, that this source of energy is the most optimal in terms of cost of production, consumption and environmental impact.
Second, the argument claims that there is currently no danger of running out of energy any time soon. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the editorial does not mention any of the current rate of usage of energy. In fact, if we expect developing countries to use as much energy as developed ones in the next 10 or 20 years, then one would expect to see the supply of energy increasingly diminish over the next 50 years to the point where we might run out of energy. If the argument had provided evidence the current demand for energy is expected to maintain stable over the next century, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that there is no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy. From this statement again it is not clear how oil-based energy is the most efficient form of energy to fulfill our current demand. Is oil-based energy really the most efficient and most economical form of energy? Without a convincing answer to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. If the editorial had clearly mentioned all relevant facts pertaining to the current demand for energy, the impact of oil-based energy on earth and compared oil-based energy efficiency to other forms of energy (eg: renewable energy), then the argument would have been considerably strengthened. In fact, in order to assess the full merit of a situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and therefore open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
