The main premise of this letter to an editor is that President Bush's energy plan is a policy failure and that the principal reason for that is his background in the oil business.
A second premise is that oil exploration and extraction from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a bad idea for three reasons: (1) it irrevocably ruins the natural habitat of wildlife; (2) there is not much oil there; and (3) it will take 10 years to develop.
A third premise is that Bush should mandate gasoline conservation, for the reason that the US does not have ready access to the world's petroleum reserves.
A fourth premise is that America should lessen its dependence on petroleum, for two reasons: (1) need for oil involves the US in wars in oil-rich parts of the world; and (2) it makes them vulnerable to terrorist attack.
A fifth premise is that it is patriotic to buy low-gas-mileage vehicles, for the reason that otherwise the other stated premises will control American experience.
The type of reasoning that the writer uses is mainly inductive, since the text starts with a premise that is a main idea that is actually also the main conclusion of the argument. Each of the subsequent premises is actually an argument or observation that supports the validity of the first statement. Over the course of the argument the writer offers particular examples of why the conclusion of the failure of the Bush policy is a correct one, even though that conclusion is not restated in so many words.
The overall presentation is that Bush either wants to do what should not be done or does not want to do what should be done if energy policy is going to be good.
The second premise provides an example of what Bush wants to do that should not be done. It can be stated as a deductive argument.
Oil drilling permanently destroys natural wildlife habitat; and
Oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are not abundant; and
Exploiting Arctic...