The city council proposed reducing the city’s electric expenses by changing incandescent bulbs to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The city council also claims that LED is brighter and cost no more purchases. However, the proposal contains some flaws and will not be accepted if it fails to answer some critical assumption; moreover, the conclusion dismisses some assumption which is important to draw an accurate conclusion.
The first problem with this argument is that the city council claim LED is cost no more purchases. The cost is the same as before means does not mean that the overall cost will be the same. Moreover, it is the main initial cost of this proposal and other costs like fixing the LED, the line cost and the labour cost which is also significant to predicting a cost before a proposal. But, this proposal has no information related to cost calculation.
The second flaw is that, the city council express that LED light burns brighter. But, if the light burns more than it could be consumed more electricity and therefore expense will increase. Another is, the maximum capacity of the electric line is not known, thus if LED burns more or take electricity higher then the line can be damaged.
The third issue is if the LED is not fit in the place of incandescent bulb then what will happen? Moreover, there is no enough information about the infrastructure of the building, setting of the switch and its overall capacity of a bulb. Therefore, if the infrastructure of the building is old then will the LED bulb would be suitable? If it is not suitable then the city council need to change the infrastructure which increases expense.
While the overall hypothesis is interesting but, by examining various facts it can conclude that the city council required to present more information to validate this proposal.
The city council proposed reducing the city’s electric expenses by changing incandescent
bulbs
to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The city council
also
claims that
LED
is brighter and
cost
no more
purchases
.
However
, the
proposal
contains
some
flaws and will not be
accepted
if it fails to answer
some
critical assumption;
moreover
, the conclusion dismisses
some
assumption which is
important
to draw an accurate conclusion.
The
first
problem with this argument is that the city council claim
LED
is
cost
no more
purchases
. The
cost
is the same as
before
means does not mean that the
overall
cost
will be the same.
Moreover
, it is the main initial
cost
of this
proposal
and other
costs
like fixing the
LED
, the line
cost
and the
labour
cost
which is
also
significant to predicting a
cost
before
a
proposal
.
But
, this
proposal
has no information related to
cost
calculation.
The second flaw is that, the city council express that
LED
light burns brighter.
But
, if the light burns more than it could
be consumed
more electricity and
therefore
expense will increase. Another is, the maximum capacity of the electric line is not known,
thus
if
LED
burns more or take electricity
higher then
the line can
be damaged
.
The third issue is if the
LED
is not fit in the place of incandescent
bulb
then what will happen?
Moreover
, there is no
enough
information about the infrastructure of the building, setting of the switch and its
overall
capacity of a
bulb
.
Therefore
, if the infrastructure of the building is
old
then will the
LED
bulb
would be suitable? If it is not suitable then the city council need to
change
the infrastructure which increases expense.
While the
overall
hypothesis is interesting
but
, by examining various facts it can conclude that the city council required to present more information to validate this
proposal
.