MyMGMAT Attempt

[pandeyrav]

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."

[pandeyrav]

The argument at first glance appears to be a very convincing one. It addresses two major issues concerning the continued availability of oil-based energy: Natural reserves and country's reserves. However, i find that the argument fails to address some key question: whether continued production of oil can be taken for-granted ? whether the energy needs of future have been carefully approximated ? I shall examine both the strengths and weaknesses of the argument in the following passages.

There are three major factors that determine whether we are on the brink of an energy crisis:
1. Is there enough natural supply of oil that would meet energy needs of foreseeable future ?
2. Does the country have enough reserves to tide over fluctuations in international supply ?
3. Is the cost of oil and hence oil-based energy reasonable enough to not impact the other parts of economy?

Even if it is proven that there are enough reserves of oil in nature, factors such as international political climate, non-uniform distribution of reserves so that some countries have more reserves than others, trade treaties and cost of production could heavily influence the supply of oil and could potentially adversely affect the energy situation of a country.

Fluctuations in the supply of oil are frequent and can adversely impact a country's energy situation. Reserves of oil are used to control the supply of oil in the market. However, the severity and longevity of fluctuations can change over a period of time, in turn affecting the size of reserves needed to smooth those fluctuations. The current reserves might be sufficient for today's needs, but will they be adequate to handle future requirements as well? Will that have any impact on the energy production of the country.

Since, the argument is basically based on the principle of demand and supply, another question begs answering. What will be the economic impact if the supply of oil tightened resulting in it's price increases ? Since there will be no alternative sources of energy to oil, would such a price increases affect the economy of the country ? If yes, then in what way ? Would investing in alternative sources of energy be less economical than maintaining such huge inventories ?

It is now easier to see the flaws in the arguments and the severity of these flaws could not be overstated. If the argument is expanded to answer the questions raised earlier in the essay satisfactorily, then the argument could greatly enhance its credibility and would be more likely to find wider acceptance.

[EasternM]

great templete and flow of wrtting

[Giscard]

Great writing, however I am not sure bullet points (1,2,3..) in AWA. I might be wrong.

[pandeyrav]

Originally Posted by Giscard

Great writing, however I am not sure bullet points (1,2,3..) in AWA. I might be wrong.

Thanks ! I am not sure about the bullet points either. All the writing that i have done past several years at work has been limited to emails and emails are less confusing when points are bulleted. I have just got into the habit i guess. However, i think it would be safer to stay clear of bullets in an essay in lack of more authoritative suggestions.