|
|
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.
24 Mar 2011, 08:31
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument above is seriously flawed by various assumptions that the author has made.The author has not given thought to the various scenarios which can question the author's conclusion strongly.Here are a few flaws as identified in the argument above which proves that author conclusion is seriously flawed.
Firstly,as per the practical scenario the exact in-ground future reservoir can not be assured cent per cent.The predictions are not always correct.For example who would have thought that the reservoirs of Blue Sapphire will exhaust in such a small time in country like Thailand which is known for its tremendous reservoirs of gems.According to a recent syrvey by the Thailand government it has been found that Blue Sapphires are at the brink of exhausion and going to end soon.
Secondly,the author has taken into consideration only a century reserve of oil but has not taken into consideration what will happen after a century is passed.The statement by the politicians does not take into consideration only a century while forecasting about saving of the oil reserves.It always considers the benefit of the comming generations in centuries to come not only for a single century.The author should have considered that politician's suggestion is for a larger period scope not for just one century hence reservoir saving is must as per the governmnent suggestion.For example all the countries around the world are discussing on the non-renewable resorvoirs that are going to exhaust soon in the coming centuries.Everyone is concerned about future prospects of resrevoirs in the long run not for a single century.
Moreover,the author has taken the prediction very subjectively.The author has subjectively disregarded the politicians claim taking into consideration only example of one resource that is oil.He has neglected other fast depleting resorces that the politicians might be talking about. For example according to a recent report by World Renewable resorce conservation commitie not only reservoirs of oil but reservoirs of coal and various metals are depleting at a very fast rate and needs to be stopped as soon as possible.
In conclusion it can be said that the the author has disregarded the politicians claim without giving examples of any other reservoir.The author could have included various examples of other resorces to support his statement.More statistical data could have been included to support the aurgument of the author.The perspective of the author should have been more wide in terms of time frame and depleting resources in question.Hence I feel that there is a strong need to set aside the technolgy and infrastructure for various depleting resorces for sure.The author needs to revive his conclusion again so that it becomes more logical and relevant.
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 is seriously flawed by various assumptions that the author has made.The author has not given thought to the various scenarios which can question the author's conclusion strongly.Here are a few flaws as identified in the argument above which proves that author conclusion is seriously flawed.
Firstly,as per the practical scenario the exact in-ground future reservoir can not be assured cent per cent.The predictions are not always correct.For example who would have thought that the reservoirs of Blue Sapphire will exhaust in such a small time in country like Thailand which is known for its tremendous reservoirs of gems.According to a recent syrvey by the Thailand government it has been found that Blue Sapphires are at the brink of exhausion and going to end soon.
Secondly,the author has taken into consideration only a century reserve of oil but has not taken into consideration what will happen after a century is passed.The statement by the politicians does not take into consideration only a century while forecasting about saving of the oil reserves.It always considers the benefit of the comming generations in centuries to come not only for a single century.The author should have considered that politician's suggestion is for a larger period scope not for just one century hence reservoir saving is must as per the governmnent suggestion.For example all the countries around the world are discussing on the non-renewable resorvoirs that are going to exhaust soon in the coming centuries.Everyone is concerned about future prospects of resrevoirs in the long run not for a single century.
Moreover,the author has taken the prediction very subjectively.The author has subjectively disregarded the politicians claim taking into consideration only example of one resource that is oil.He has neglected other fast depleting resorces that the politicians might be talking about. For example according to a recent report by World Renewable resorce conservation commitie not only reservoirs of oil but reservoirs of coal and various metals are depleting at a very fast rate and needs to be stopped as soon as possible.
In conclusion it can be said that the the author has disregarded the politicians claim without giving examples of any other reservoir.The author could have included various examples of other resorces to support his statement.More statistical data could have been included to support the aurgument of the author.The perspective of the author should have been more wide in terms of time frame and depleting resources in question.Hence I feel that there is a strong need to set aside the technolgy and infrastructure for various depleting resorces for sure.The author needs to revive his conclusion again so that it becomes more logical and relevant.
Moderators:
188 posts
