Explore BrainMass

series of logical arguments - cutting emissions

Your city has been warned by the EPA to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions or you will lose substantial federal funds. One citizen's group has advocated drastically reducing electricity use. A second group advocates reduced use of automobiles within city limits. Choose one or the other position to support. Develop a series of logical arguments to support your position.

Solution Preview

Firstly, consider how sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide is actually formed. Both of these compounds are by-products of combustion, specifically that of fossil fuels which contain both sulfur elements and various nitrogen-fixed elements which recombine with oxygen to create nitrogen oxides. As a result, the common theme for both of these proposals is the source: combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the argument quickly becomes - which of the two: electricity use vs. automobile use - uses more fossil fuels (and what kind? Since different fuels may release different amounts) and therefore releases more sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide?


Many cities use fossil fuel power plants to provide electricity for their citizens. It is fairly cheap to implement and maintain, ...

Solution Summary

The solution discusses the series of logical arguments on cutting emissions.