Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
02 Jul 2017, 09:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
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:
The author claims that the politicians are misguided as they claim that we are on a brink of energy crisis based on his evaluation that the current production and supply of oil is sufficient to avoid energy crisis. The author further states that based on his evaluation there is no further need to set aside technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy. The author fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated and provides reasoning which demonstrates leap of faith rather than substantial correlation as a basis of his conclusion.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that if there is an energy crisis as stated by some politicians, the energy crisis can be directly related to supply of energy by conventional methods of energy production, that is, usage of fossil fuels, specifically oil. Simply having enough oil does not guarantee energy production as energy demand may come from various industries not directly dependent on oil. There are many industries which have converted from oil dependency and are directly dependent on electricity to meet their energy needs. Although oil can be used to produce electricity, however due to climate change throughout the world, most governments have mandated reduction of usage of fossil fuels for energy production. This leave uncertain future of oil as a dependable source to meet the energy needs and avoid energy crisis. The author further does not provide any information on the current market share of oil . If such information was available we can easily determine the effected industries and effected areas of energy crisis and provide alternative solutions to these industries with other sources of energy supply.
Secondly, the author states that there is enough in-ground oil. The author assumes that all of this oil is recoverable. However, majority of the oil reserves currently determined poses significant technical difficulties to extract due to topographical and geological reasons and therefore raw oil reserve numbers does not provide credible information on the extractable amount of oil.Therefore, if further research and development is not pursued and enough resources are not allocated to generate solutions to extract these resources, then the supply of oil will get limited and trigger energy crisis.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the above stated reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all relevant facts like current market share of oil, current industries effected by oil, facts and figures of extractable oil, et cetra. Without this information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Suggestions and recommendations will be much appreciated. This is my First essay under timed conditions.
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:
The author claims that the politicians are misguided as they claim that we are on a brink of energy crisis based on his evaluation that the current production and supply of oil is sufficient to avoid energy crisis. The author further states that based on his evaluation there is no further need to set aside technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy. The author fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated and provides reasoning which demonstrates leap of faith rather than substantial correlation as a basis of his conclusion.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that if there is an energy crisis as stated by some politicians, the energy crisis can be directly related to supply of energy by conventional methods of energy production, that is, usage of fossil fuels, specifically oil. Simply having enough oil does not guarantee energy production as energy demand may come from various industries not directly dependent on oil. There are many industries which have converted from oil dependency and are directly dependent on electricity to meet their energy needs. Although oil can be used to produce electricity, however due to climate change throughout the world, most governments have mandated reduction of usage of fossil fuels for energy production. This leave uncertain future of oil as a dependable source to meet the energy needs and avoid energy crisis. The author further does not provide any information on the current market share of oil . If such information was available we can easily determine the effected industries and effected areas of energy crisis and provide alternative solutions to these industries with other sources of energy supply.
Secondly, the author states that there is enough in-ground oil. The author assumes that all of this oil is recoverable. However, majority of the oil reserves currently determined poses significant technical difficulties to extract due to topographical and geological reasons and therefore raw oil reserve numbers does not provide credible information on the extractable amount of oil.Therefore, if further research and development is not pursued and enough resources are not allocated to generate solutions to extract these resources, then the supply of oil will get limited and trigger energy crisis.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the above stated reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all relevant facts like current market share of oil, current industries effected by oil, facts and figures of extractable oil, et cetra. Without this information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Suggestions and recommendations will be much appreciated. This is my First essay under timed conditions.
Moderators:
188 posts
