Surname 1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
The EPA's Mercury Problem
Introduction
Electrical power is an essential commodity in today’s world. The tremendously growing
industry of technology necessitates this in the world. It is estimated that over 80% of the
world population consume electrical power. There are a couple of methods of generating
electricity. The power generated is used as a source of lighting, cocking, and power for
different types of machinery in the household. Susan emphasizes the problem of mercury
whereby in the process of manufacturing a bulb, mercury is used to enhance lighting. She
openly discusses the health hazards associated with using a mercury bulb. Susan Brown
presents a reasonable and well-adjusted opinion, she has well-supported claims with
particular examples and clear shreds of evidence, and she effectively has a logic argument.
Body
The primary motive of Susan's essay to be rendered successful is that she had a fair
and balanced argument to present to the audience. Susan introduces her apparent use of ethos
in the essay. Susan has well-adjusted ethical appeal on the significance of lighting her house
but still states the struggle she has to go through to install the bulbs. According to Susan (1),
after learning the risks involved with the natural Fluorescent lights (CFLs) she had to buy
ninety-six incandescent light bulb. She undoubtedly compares and presents the difference
between the Compact fluorescent bulb and the incandescent light bulb. Besides, she observes
an estimated number of the user. In the paper, Susan refers to Compact fluorescent bulb as
, Surname 2
the environmentalists’ favorite bulb. It illustrates that the compact fluorescent bulb is
typically used.
The consumption of goods should be aimed at quality services to the consumer.
Health safety and guaranty, long life and Suitable to the environment. The author depicts the
effects and disadvantages to the wellbeing. Susan ascertains that research conducted by Yale
University scientists highlighted that the CFLs bub has only one advantage to the consumer.
The benefit includes reducing power bills due to its ability to regulate power. This generally
subjects the compact fluorescent bulb as health hazardous. Similarly, other research has
discredited the use of CFLs bulbs. For instance, the UK Telegraph claim that CFLs should
not be left on for an extended period. They emit poisonous materials when switched on. The
feasibility study found those substances as carcinogenic. The elements are harmful to human
beings and hence should be kept away.
The author highlights the false analogy that is generally passed by the
environmentalist on the use of CFLs bulbs. The experts render the CFLs bulbs as a cost-
efficient bulb. This contradicts the fact that the bulb has disadvantages. This includes the
production of dangerous gas to the buyer. The hot hand assumption is expertly portrayed.
The population assumes that the bulb is habitually used and has fewer cases then it is suitable
for consumption and moreover, in the household where families live. Humans are mostly
affected health wise vary from the age of the person. A child is more likely to be affected by
the gas compared to adults.
A clear appeal to logic is shown in the paper, as vibrant Shaw man is depicted on the
low price of the compact fluorescent lighting bulb but discard the fact that their measure for
efficiency decreases if the bulbs are switched on and off. The CFLs emits harmful gases that
cause diseases such as breast cancer, skin problems, and migraines. Susan has a significant
argument on the production and the regulation of mercury. The fair opinions are based on the
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
The EPA's Mercury Problem
Introduction
Electrical power is an essential commodity in today’s world. The tremendously growing
industry of technology necessitates this in the world. It is estimated that over 80% of the
world population consume electrical power. There are a couple of methods of generating
electricity. The power generated is used as a source of lighting, cocking, and power for
different types of machinery in the household. Susan emphasizes the problem of mercury
whereby in the process of manufacturing a bulb, mercury is used to enhance lighting. She
openly discusses the health hazards associated with using a mercury bulb. Susan Brown
presents a reasonable and well-adjusted opinion, she has well-supported claims with
particular examples and clear shreds of evidence, and she effectively has a logic argument.
Body
The primary motive of Susan's essay to be rendered successful is that she had a fair
and balanced argument to present to the audience. Susan introduces her apparent use of ethos
in the essay. Susan has well-adjusted ethical appeal on the significance of lighting her house
but still states the struggle she has to go through to install the bulbs. According to Susan (1),
after learning the risks involved with the natural Fluorescent lights (CFLs) she had to buy
ninety-six incandescent light bulb. She undoubtedly compares and presents the difference
between the Compact fluorescent bulb and the incandescent light bulb. Besides, she observes
an estimated number of the user. In the paper, Susan refers to Compact fluorescent bulb as
, Surname 2
the environmentalists’ favorite bulb. It illustrates that the compact fluorescent bulb is
typically used.
The consumption of goods should be aimed at quality services to the consumer.
Health safety and guaranty, long life and Suitable to the environment. The author depicts the
effects and disadvantages to the wellbeing. Susan ascertains that research conducted by Yale
University scientists highlighted that the CFLs bub has only one advantage to the consumer.
The benefit includes reducing power bills due to its ability to regulate power. This generally
subjects the compact fluorescent bulb as health hazardous. Similarly, other research has
discredited the use of CFLs bulbs. For instance, the UK Telegraph claim that CFLs should
not be left on for an extended period. They emit poisonous materials when switched on. The
feasibility study found those substances as carcinogenic. The elements are harmful to human
beings and hence should be kept away.
The author highlights the false analogy that is generally passed by the
environmentalist on the use of CFLs bulbs. The experts render the CFLs bulbs as a cost-
efficient bulb. This contradicts the fact that the bulb has disadvantages. This includes the
production of dangerous gas to the buyer. The hot hand assumption is expertly portrayed.
The population assumes that the bulb is habitually used and has fewer cases then it is suitable
for consumption and moreover, in the household where families live. Humans are mostly
affected health wise vary from the age of the person. A child is more likely to be affected by
the gas compared to adults.
A clear appeal to logic is shown in the paper, as vibrant Shaw man is depicted on the
low price of the compact fluorescent lighting bulb but discard the fact that their measure for
efficiency decreases if the bulbs are switched on and off. The CFLs emits harmful gases that
cause diseases such as breast cancer, skin problems, and migraines. Susan has a significant
argument on the production and the regulation of mercury. The fair opinions are based on the
