Argument - Home heating oil

Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last year that region experienced twenty days with below-average temperatures, and local weather forecasters throughout the region predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes have been built in this region during the past year. Because of these developments, 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 discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. 


The author provides a couple pieces of evidence to recommend investing in Consolidated Industries, contending that the company that has major business in retail sale of home heating oil will be profitable because of an increased demand for the following several years. The validity of this recommendation can be questioned on many grounds. Critical questions must be answered in order to assess the validity of this recommendation. 

The author makes the major assumption that what happened in the past will certainly happen in the future. Will the weather pattern actually continue for several more years? It is one thing to forecast the weather, but a forecast does not guarantee the weather for years to come. Will the following years actually be as cold as the forecasters are predicting? Although the facts cannot be disputed that the region experienced below average cold weather for the past few years, it is difficult to forecast into several years into the future. If the following years do not experience the same coldness, Consolidated Industries may not see a profit surge amidst the less-than-expected chill.

Even if the years to follow do turn out to be as cold, will people actually use more heating oil, or even keep using heating oil? The author assumes yes, without apt justification. There are many possibilities for people not choosing to use heating oil. Perhaps heating oil has been costly and people want to switch to a cheaper option with so many cold days. The author mentions new homes will further increase the demand. It is also a leap to assume that the new homes would continue use the traditional method of heating. Modern development could allow for these homes to be heated with a different type of fuel. In such a case, the new homes built in this region will not increase the demand for heating oil, and therefore do nothing to Consolidated Industries' profits. 

The author makes the bold recommendation to Invest in Consolidated Industries without considering why other investment options would not be as profitable. The author essentially is assuming that all customers of heating oil will buy from Consolidated Industries. Even if the future were to prove cold, and the people to demand more heating oil, the author fails to mention why those people would choose Consolidated Industries over competitors. Seeing a good market opportunity, other companies could jump in to compete for a share of the profit, thereby reducing the effect of the increased demand on Consolidated's profitability. 

While the author presents an interesting recommendation, the logical chain has several gaps that cannot be justified with the given information. The author could strengthen his claim by

(did not finish :( ...)  

Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position. 

     Ever since the Industrial Revolution, modernity has been wiping out wilderness areas to develop them for human use. Nowadays, a heightened concern for the environment has been calling for preservation laws. Such laws presume that preserving nature in its state is the responsibility of mankind and that it is in the long-run better for humanity. However, pressing such laws may not always be the best. Nations should contain laws to preserve wilderness areas that are not harmful to the lives of humans. 

    One of the cardinal reasons for preserving wilderness areas is the idea that humans--at the top of the food chain and able to exercise morality--hold such a responsibility. Furthermore, taking care of the environment can, in turn, be beneficial to humanity. With present-day hours replete with technology, concrete buildings, and asphalt roads, the modern person retreats to a replenishing vacation in the comfort of Mother Nature. Preserving the wilderness means preserving the variety of animal species. An extreme example is the De-militarized Zone (DMZ) in the border of North and South Korea. The land has been left at its wartime state for nearly half-a-century; the DMZ shows the vast array of wild animals and plant species that are impossible to observe in industrialized towns and cities. In such cases that nature enriches human lives, nations should preserve wilderness areas in their natural state. 

    

   However, nations should take precaution in deciphering the effects of certain wilderness areas. The law should not enforce the preservation of all wilderness areas without discrimination.  Some areas may be deleterious to human life. Some areas in Africa have mosquito-ridden swampy areas that are dangerous for nearby inhabitants. Such areas, if left at their natural state, fosters Malaria, a fatal disease. In such cases, the government should work to develop those areas for the welfare of its people.

 

  Not all wilderness areas are alike. Nations must not pass laws that indiscriminately call for a preservation of all wilderness areas. Preservation laws should mandate that one consider the area's effect on the lives of its people. All in all, as long as the wilderness in question is not harmful to humans, nations should preserve nature in its state to ultimately enrich the lives of modern-day people.

To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest and moral ethical standards.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

--------- 

What is an effective leader? Any great leader must be able to make quick, smart decisions and manage his people well. However in the case of public officials, an effective leader must be able to stir up the public's opinion. Along these lines, I strongly agree to that a public official  must be moral and ethical in order to be an effective leader. Two compelling real-life cases bolster my assertion.

Recently, there was much wringing of hands as well as fulminations by the public around some of Governor Chris Christie's actions in New Jersey. To give an example from many, Gov. Christie blocked off a few lanes in a specific part of New Jersey that caused inconveniences for people. Not only was this found intentional, but it was also found immoral because he had done this egregious thing because of a personal malicious feeling towards the officials in that part of town. The public was enraged. This incident raises the question whether an effective leader must necessarily possess high moral standards. Christie had previously been deemed as an effective leader, in so far as being considered for the presidential nominee. However, this one incident more than piqued the public and its view soured towards him. After this and a couple more similar cases, the public is unlikely to consider Christie an effective leader suited for any better position. A public official must, therefore, maintain his or her scruples.

An analogous case in history is compelling in this regard. Emperor Napoleon is still considered to be among men who amassed the most political power in the history of the world. However, even he, at times, did not show the highest ethics and morals. He was traveling with his troops and stopped at Jaffa, inevitably because most of his troops had been afflicted with an infectious disease. Many were dying. It is said that Napoleon ruthlessly killed off many soldiers so that the disease would be contained. The Emperor is said to have returned to France blaming the disease for the death of most of his troops. Napoleon's immoral acts was not limited to this one event. Although history may have forgotten much of Napoleon's misdoings and remembers him as a once-powerful leader, this must not have been true for the people under his government. For the people who are actually under the person's power, a moral leader would make the effective leader.

In sum, public officials must have high morals to win the hearts of the public, and hence be an effective leader.


-----
comments:
practice writing more so I'm not lagged in searching for words.
logical structure at the expense of wording is better.