Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of fossil fuels on society
Impact of fossil fuels on society
The impact of fossil fuel consumption
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of fossil fuels on society
The conclusion of Lomborg’s second key argument is that the poor countries must rely on cheap fossil fuels to sustain their growth and improve people’s lives. This argument contains three premises. The first premise is that fossil fuels are absolutely necessary for providing 81% of the planet’s energy needs today and the percentage will be almost as high in 2035. The second premise is that coal is the only plentiful and cheap choice for poor countries to sustain their development. The third premise is the case of China, which used coal to generate energy and moved about 680 million people out of poverty. Lomborg’s second key argument is a deductive argument because the first premise is broad and the following premises become increasingly specific, the conclusion fits into the specific condition and follows logically from the three premises. This key argument is valid since if the three premises are true, the conclusion must be true. I intended to argue that this argument is not sound because its premises are not true. …show more content…
Though this statement is supported by the International Energy Agency (IEA), an authoritative international institution that making his statement much credible, we should realise that there is an underlying assumption for this premise to be true, that is, the current policies are unchanged. Since we are not sure whether the current policies would continue or not, this premise is not necessarily true. On the contrary, according to another report by IEA, solar electricity is estimated to cover 25% of the world’s total electricity needs by 2050, taking up the largest portion of all sources of electricity (IEA,
Deductive reasoning is a logical way to increase the set of facts that are assumed to be true. The purpose of Deductive reasoning is to end up at a logical conclusion based on the subject of discussion. Deductive Reasoning uses statements that are logically true in order to omit other statements that contradict the logically true statement, which is to deduce, subtract or takeaway. What
In this short paper I will examine the positions of foundationalism and coherentism, and argue that a form of weak foundationalism is the most satisfactory option as a valid theory of justification for knowledge and is therefore a viable way of avoiding any sort of vicious regress problem and skepticism.
The first topic to discuss is the logical appeal of the argument. According to the proponents for the issue of part...
As the global population increases exponentially, having passed six billion in 1999, the world population is expected to be 8.9 billion by the year 2050. The worlds energy consumption will increase by an estimated 54 percent by 2025. Energy demand in the industrialized world is projected to grow 1.2 percent per year. Energy is a critical component of sustained economic growth and improved standards of living. One of the major requirements for sustaining human progress is an adequate source of energy. As the world’s technological enhancements and standards of living improve, so too does their appetite for electricity.
The biggest flaw I find in his argument is the inconsistent meaning of ‘render’ in regard to unchangeable facts in premise (4) and (5). If it is interpreted with consistency, the argument fails as certain premise and the conclusion no longer holds. First, I would like to establish that both P0, the past, and L, the laws of nature, are unchangeable facts to human beings. It follows that one cannot cause or prove true unchangeable facts to be false; one can only prove or discover the falsity of false suppositions of unchangeable facts. For example, it was widely accepted that the earth was flat until Eratosthenes proved it false. We could here say: Eratosthenes rendered it false that the earth was flat. He clearly did not cause the earth to be not flat, nor did he cause the true proposition of the earth being flat to be false. The earth had always been not flat in spite of Eratosthenes’ discovery. It simply means that he proved the falsity of a proposition that was falsely assumed all along. With Inwagen’s definition of ‘render’, I could accept (4) to mean that J could have proved that (P0&L) was not the actual conjunction that existed. It is obvious that the non-existence of (P0&L) is not caused by J’s action. Thus, (P0&L) had been false from time T0 independent of whether J raises his hand or not at T. Similarly, since L is also an unchangeable fact, then premise (5) means that J could have proved L false if he could have proved (P0&L) false. Again, (5) would imply that L had been false the whole time independent of J’s actions at T. If we acknowledge this consistency among (4) and (5), L or (P0&L) could have been false the whole time. Then it is entirely possible for J to render L false, as in to prove the falsity of L which was already false. Hence, (6) would then be false and so follows the conclusion. In order for (6) to be true, we will have to accept the following definitions: ‘render’ means to
When talking about an argument, it should be written in a manner that unfolds both the strengths and limits of the argument. The point of an argument is to come to a conclusion as close to the truth or realistic solution. In the twentieth-century, British philosopher Stephen Toulmin asked the question of where is the love and what are the uses of an argument. Stephen Toulmin then conducted a method constructing and analyzing an argument. This method, named after Stephen Toulmin, is called the Toulmin model. The Toulmin model involves breaking down an argument into six basic parts, looking at all supporting points and views both for and against the argument.
For the purposes of this debate, I take the sign of a poor argument to be that the negation of the premises are more plausible than their affirmations. With that in mind, kohai must demonstrate that the following premises are probably false:
I shall also expound Ayer's theory of knowledge, as related in his book. I will show this theory to contain logical errors, making his modified version of the principle flawed from a second angle.
“By 2050, one-third of the world’s energy will need to come from solar, wind, and other renewable resources” (www.altenergy.org). America can no longer rely so heavily on nuclear energy. America needs to harness the energy found within natural, renewable resources. In fact, nuclear energy needs to be phased out completely because of its negative impact on health, the environment, and its overall cost.
The natural resource that I am writing this paper on is coal. Coal is a cheap, dirty fossil fuel which we burn to create power. Coal is the most abundant in North America and in Russia, including the area around it. China also has a fairly good amount of coal in it too. Coal, like all of the other fossil fuels is nonrenewable and will eventually run out, in the not so near future. Coal is very important to many of the countries of the world. The countries that use the most coal are China, the United States, India, Russia, and Japan. These five countries “account for 76% of total global coal use.” (World Coal Association, 2014).
In this argument, if “employees have a duty of loyalty to the companies that employ them” is considered the p and “it is rational for employees to expect companies to recognize and fulfill a duty of loyalty to their employees” will be the q. It continues to follow that q is false as it is not rational for employees to expect companies to recognize and fulfill loyalty to their employees. The logical form ends with not p as “It is false that employees have a duty of loyalty to the companies that employ them”. It is known that this argument is deductively valid but in order to show that the conclusion is also true, it must be true that the argument is deductively sound. An example of a deductively valid argument would be as following: Premise 1) All mammals have four feet; Premise 2) Lions are mammals; Conclusion) Therefore, Lions have four feet. Premise 1 in this argument is true, mammals do have four feet, Premise 2 is also true, Lions are mammals, and therefore the conclusion is also true that Lions have four feet. With these true premises leading to a true conclusion help us understand
Attention Getter: Let’s look ahead fifty years and see what the world is like. Imagine a world that is in total war with no end in sight. The cause behind this war is simple, oil. Everyone is fighting over those last few reserves of oil. How can this future be prevented? The answer is solar power.
Solar is a viable alternative energy source with solar panels becoming more affordable and more efficiently designed.
The world that we live into today affords us the expectation that the flip a switch will turn the lights on. As populations increase and developing nations undergo dramatic economic growth, this energy demand will only continue to grow. The International Energy Agency (IEA) believes that “the world’s energy needs could be 50% higher in 2030 than they are today” (ElBaradei). Given this projected growth, it is necessary for world leaders must take action to secure the energy supply. Meaning that world leaders need to start seriously considering an alternative to non-renewable energy sources. “In 2012, the United States generated about 4,054 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. About 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 37% attributed from coal” (U.S. Energy Information Administration). The fossil fuels that are used to supply over half of our country’s energy are in finite supply and are increasing in price to astronomical heights.