“I’ve heard many reasons why our nation should reduce its reliance on petroleum vehicle fuels. One is that relying on imported oil makes our economy dependent on the political whims of foreign rulers. Another is that other energy sources, like the possibility of hydrogen based fuels, are less harmful to the environment. And a third is that petroleum is not a renewable resource so when we’ve used it all up, it will be gone! But I don’t think we’re likely to use it all up for at least another fifty years. And by then we’ll have invented new and better fuels and more fuel-efficient vehicles too. So that argument doesn’t worry me. And I don’t really believe the stuff about how foreign leaders can force our nation to change its policies simply by decreasing their oil production. Oil companies like Exxon have made record profits precisely in those times when the supply of foreign oil was reduced. I don’t see the big oil companies being very interested in policy change when the money is rolling in. And for another, our nation has demonstrated that it is willing to wage war rather than to permit foreign leaders to push us around. So this whole thing about how we have to reduce our reliance on petroleum based gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel is bogus.” The speaker’s reasoning is best evaluated as
A = strong. It shows the arguments for reducing petroleum vehicle fuels are weak.
B = strong. The speaker is very clear about what he believes and why he believes it.
C = weak. The speaker probably owns stock in Exxon or some other oil company.
D = weak. The speaker ignored the environmental argument entirely.