please evaluate my first argument essay

[1554651996]

Could you guys please give me some advice on my sentences? I always explain my reasons in just a few sentences and cannot think of more when hitting the point.

The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice for a client.
"Most homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last heating season that region experienced 90 days with below-normal temperatures, and climate forecasters predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes are being built in the region in response to recent population growth. Because of these trends, we predict an increased demand for heating oil and recommend investment in Consolidated Industries, one of whose major business operations is the retail sale of home heating oil."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.


In this argument, the author predicts an increasing demand for heating oil. To support his conclusion, the author points out that oil have been traditionally used as major fuel for heating in the northeastern US. He also claims that last heating season that region experienced 90 days with below-normal temperatures, and climate forecasters predict a continual weather pattern for several more years. In addition, the author mentions that many new homes are being built in the region due to recent population growth. Thus he suggests investment in CI(stands for Consolidated Industries) company, one of whose major business operations is the retail sale of home heating oil. This argument appears to be reasonable at first glance, however it relies on several unsubstantiated assumptions.

First of all, the tradition that oil is the major fuel for heating does not necessarily imply that people will continue to use it. It is possible that they may choose other kinds of fuel such as gas or coal in future, or they just decide to put on more clothes to overcome the typically cold weather instead of proceeding to use oil. There is no assurance that this situation will remain unchanged in the anticipated future. As completely based on the assumption that the tradition of using oil will persist in the next years, the author’s conjecture needs more evidences.

Secondly, the author needs to provide more information about the statistics. Maybe 90 days is not a long time comparing to previous years and the below-normal temperatures might just be slightly lower than the normal temperatures. Or people just chose to move to other warmer places to overcome the cold weather. If so, the amount of oil usage certainly would not increase in last heating season. Then the author assumes that the temperatures will be low for several more years according to climate forecasters. However, the author fails to convince me that climate forecasters are reliable and the prediction is accurate. It is highly possible that these forecasters are not “experts” at all. And even if they proved to be so, the prediction remains questionable since such a long-term weather prediction is always inaccurate according to our previous experience.

Thirdly, even if many new homes are being built in the region, it is unwarranted to presume there will be an increased demand for heating oil. We do not know the reason why population grows. Maybe it is temporary residents that caused the population growth and they will leave this region when winter comes. Even if they settle in this place, we cannot assert the demand for oil will increase. What if the houses being built adopt other kinds of heating methods instead of oil?

Finally, even if the bases of the argument are verified, we require further consideration for investment in CI company. The author poses an assumption that an increased demand for oil will result in profit growth in CI company, which is unjustified. No evidence shows that oil is supplied by CI company rather than other companies. What is more, the increasing in the demand of heating oil in northeastern may be less than the reduction therefore the profit surely will not ascend.

In summary, the drawback in this argument is that it bases the conclusion on unwarranted assumptions. In order to be more cogent, the author should provide more details possibly from a further survey to substantiate that oil is and will be major fuel for heating. Also the author should convincingly verify that the demand for heating oil will increase due to the cold weather and new homes’ building through more specific evidence. Moreover, it would be better accepted if the author could prove that investment in CI is profitable if the demand for heating oil increases.

[tommywallach]

Hola,

Great start here. You hit a lot of good points. My note for you is the same I give to many people. Ground your points IN THE TEXT, instead of letting them float free.

"First of all, the tradition that oil is the major fuel for heating does not necessarily imply that people will continue to use it. It is possible that they may choose other kinds of fuel such as gas or coal in future, or they just decide to put on more clothes to overcome the typically cold weather instead of proceeding to use oil. There is no assurance that this situation will remain unchanged in the anticipated future. As completely based on the assumption that the tradition of using oil will persist in the next years, the author’s conjecture needs more evidences."

-- This is a great point. I would tie it to the TEXT by mentioning the new homes being built. Tradition is not necessarily kept when you build NEW homes, which run on more efficient stuff. Mention the piece of text.

"Secondly, the author needs to provide more information about the statistics. Maybe 90 days is not a long time comparing to previous years and the below-normal temperatures might just be slightly lower than the normal temperatures. Or people just chose to move to other warmer places to overcome the cold weather. If so, the amount of oil usage certainly would not increase in last heating season. Then the author assumes that the temperatures will be low for several more years according to climate forecasters. However, the author fails to convince me that climate forecasters are reliable and the prediction is accurate. It is highly possible that these forecasters are not “experts” at all. And even if they proved to be so, the prediction remains questionable since such a long-term weather prediction is always inaccurate according to our previous experience."

--First point, about the 90 days, is great. From there, however, you start doubting the forecasts, which I don't think you need to do. Always argue with the connections between the facts and the conclusion, not the facts themselves (i.e. if it says expert/forecaster, assume they are experts/forecasters).

Thirdly, even if many new homes are being built in the region, it is unwarranted to presume there will be an increased demand for heating oil. We do not know the reason why population grows. Maybe it is temporary residents that caused the population growth and they will leave this region when winter comes. Even if they settle in this place, we cannot assert the demand for oil will increase. What if the houses being built adopt other kinds of heating methods instead of oil?

--This is not a good paragraph here. Population growth is population growth. Again, don't argue with the facts. Just cut this one. You don't need more than three body paragraphs anyway.

Finally, even if the bases of the argument are verified, we require further consideration for investment in CI company. The author poses an assumption that an increased demand for oil will result in profit growth in CI company, which is unjustified. No evidence shows that oil is supplied by CI company rather than other companies. What is more, the increasing in the demand of heating oil in northeastern may be less than the reduction therefore the profit surely will not ascend.

-- Definitely need to hit this point, but be super clear. You have to say the problems: "There's no way to know if CI will get the increased business." "There's no way to know if another company will get more of the bussines." The point about the reduction/profit doesn't make sense to me.

Hope that helps!

-t

[1554651996]

Hola,

Great start here. You hit a lot of good points. My note for you is the same I give to many people. Ground your points IN THE TEXT, instead of letting them float free.

"First of all, the tradition that oil is the major fuel for heating does not necessarily imply that people will continue to use it. It is possible that they may choose other kinds of fuel such as gas or coal in future, or they just decide to put on more clothes to overcome the typically cold weather instead of proceeding to use oil. There is no assurance that this situation will remain unchanged in the anticipated future. As completely based on the assumption that the tradition of using oil will persist in the next years, the author’s conjecture needs more evidences."

-- This is a great point. I would tie it to the TEXT by mentioning the new homes being built. Tradition is not necessarily kept when you build NEW homes, which run on more efficient stuff. Mention the piece of text.

"Secondly, the author needs to provide more information about the statistics. Maybe 90 days is not a long time comparing to previous years and the below-normal temperatures might just be slightly lower than the normal temperatures. Or people just chose to move to other warmer places to overcome the cold weather. If so, the amount of oil usage certainly would not increase in last heating season. Then the author assumes that the temperatures will be low for several more years according to climate forecasters. However, the author fails to convince me that climate forecasters are reliable and the prediction is accurate. It is highly possible that these forecasters are not “experts” at all. And even if they proved to be so, the prediction remains questionable since such a long-term weather prediction is always inaccurate according to our previous experience."

--First point, about the 90 days, is great. From there, however, you start doubting the forecasts, which I don't think you need to do. Always argue with the connections between the facts and the conclusion, not the facts themselves (i.e. if it says expert/forecaster, assume they are experts/forecasters).

Thirdly, even if many new homes are being built in the region, it is unwarranted to presume there will be an increased demand for heating oil. We do not know the reason why population grows. Maybe it is temporary residents that caused the population growth and they will leave this region when winter comes. Even if they settle in this place, we cannot assert the demand for oil will increase. What if the houses being built adopt other kinds of heating methods instead of oil?

--This is not a good paragraph here. Population growth is population growth. Again, don't argue with the facts. Just cut this one. You don't need more than three body paragraphs anyway.

Finally, even if the bases of the argument are verified, we require further consideration for investment in CI company. The author poses an assumption that an increased demand for oil will result in profit growth in CI company, which is unjustified. No evidence shows that oil is supplied by CI company rather than other companies. What is more, the increasing in the demand of heating oil in northeastern may be less than the reduction therefore the profit surely will not ascend.

-- Definitely need to hit this point, but be super clear. You have to say the problems: "There's no way to know if CI will get the increased business." "There's no way to know if another company will get more of the bussines." The point about the reduction/profit doesn't make sense to me.

Hope that helps!

-t

Thank you tommy. Thank you for your suggestions! It helped me a lot. I recently took my GRE test for the first time and my argument is this one, except that the instruction is different.

[tommywallach]

Gotcha! That's a lucky break. Great preparation! Hope it went well!

-t