i am trying to find a arguement for something in relation to high gasoline prices
and the american society for a argumentive/persuation essay

can someone please help me?

i thought maybe somebody with an xA or xB has a real good argument for why fuel efficient cars are better than gas-guzzling vehicles...
i am having a lot of trouble developing a strong arguement

thanks for reading and hope somebody could help me out on this

 

alright, how do you guys think this sounds

Given the soaring high gasoline prices in our nation and various parts of the world, the United State’s government should enforce tax cuts to fuel-efficient car buyers/owners/drivers in an effort to help encourage the general public to conserve less fuel and maximize energy efficiency for the near future.

 

post up the prompt, I'll get on here later tonight and give you more input.

 

yeah well heres one for ya as far as gas goes sure there better but this way if you were to get in to a car accident what would you rather be in a xa or a chevy tahoe il take the chevy

 

Okay, first you don't want to word that "conserve less fuel", it is conserve more fuel. You also want to mention reducing the country's dependence on foregin oil as well, not only for our cars but for our overall energy production, the reduction of greenhouse gasses being emitted into the air. Also, the reduction (once again) of the speed limit from 65 back to 55. Now I know the argument here, everyone drives 65 when it is 55, but when it is 65 then they drive 75. You would be surprised how much fuel you can save simply by keeping your foot out of it.

As far as the Chevy Tahoe comment, if there were more people driving more economical vehicles and less SUV's on the road then it would also reduce your chances of getting used as a speed bump in the xA.

Hope this helps you out!!!

 

You should focus on the tendancy of American people to travel with only one person in a vehicle. Consider miles per gallon per person: That Chevy Tahoe filled to it's seven-passenger capacity gets better MPG/PP than our Scions with only one person in it. Part of your proposed solution, therefore, could be to encourage car pooling and perhaps even limit the number of vehicles that can legally be owned in one household, thus forcing people to put the same amount of fuel to better use.

 

Given the soaring high gasoline prices in our nation and various parts of the world, the United State’s government should enforce tax cuts to fuel-efficient car buyers/owners/drivers in an effort to help encourage the general public to conserve more fuel so we could maximize energy consumption efficiency for the future and lessen our dependence for foreign oil.

crap that is a long "sentence" haha

so how does this sound...
sorry guys for being so stupid with this being so off topic!

but thanks rivrtc! i thought your idea fit right in.

 

Given the soaring high gasoline prices in our nation and various parts of the world, the United States' government should enforce (grant, provide) tax cuts to buyers/owners/drivers of fuel-efficient vehicles in an effort to help encourage conservation of more fuel.

good and simple?

 

And then lets see on average how many Tahoe's you see utilizing seating capacity.
rare that any large SUV always has passengers... but when my car is seated for 4, carries 1, and weighs less around 3000 lbs vs 8000... it kind of deflates your argument a little.

 

If you're going to go the "per person" route, it should be "per licensed person"

Send the final edit of your homework to me for spell checking.

 

Yes, that's precisely what I said. My assertion was that we should regulate the number of people who may ride in a vehicle -- regardless of its weight or fuel consumptionb -- thus setting a miles per gallon per person standard. Read more carefully. And please bear in mind, that this is only an academic argument. I understand that it is both unrealistic and unlikely for this to ever happen in real life.

 

Fuel efficient cars are better for two reasons... they save you money and use less of our dwindling natural resources.

Now, as for those huge gas-guzzling SUV's, if we as a nation start to regulate how many cars we can have, or how many people must be in a car, we'll be promoting Socialism! It is my personal freedom to own a gas guzzling car! If I buy a Hummer, my consequence is to pay $100/week for gas and $1,000/month for my car payment.

The reason I chose an xA is because I want to use less gas, and so that I can laugh at those SUV drivers who pay so much at the pump.

 

That's an interesting concept. While I personally like the idea, it could be another way for our government to throw money at the problem, and just wasting tax-payer dollars. Gas prices is like almost every other product, the price of gas will keep up with demand! With less oil in the world, the prices rise, and more people will naturally buy more fuel efficient cars or drive less (why do you think that there are no more Scions, Matrix's, or Corolla's on the lot at my local dealer).

Now, if an organization would do a study and show that by giving a tax break to owners of fuel-efficient vehicles, the government would save money in other areas, then I'd be all for it.

 

While higher (fossil) fuel efficiency is a respectable short term initiative, a more persuasive case might be made for government support (investment) in research and development leading to alternate fuel technologies. Why?

Many "experts" suggest that the world may have already or is nearing the point of 50% depletion of worldwide oil reserves. The prevailing theory is that the remaining 50% will be increasingly difficult (and expensive) to extract. That's not good for fossil fuel prices in the future.

Our goverment and leading business minds are increasingly concerned with our country's ability to remain an economic leader well into the future due to the fact that we are not turning out enough high-level critical thinkers (mathematicians, scientists, engineers). We are currently graduating 200,000 per year as compared to the 400,000 per year that has been cited to maintain our competitive edge.

If we approached this situation like the race to the moon in the 60's what would happen? By investing heavily in companies and institutions pursuing high-efficiency alternative fuel technologies, market demand would exist for substantially more high-level critical thinking graduates. Like the space race, many spin-off technologies would be created that would give us economic advantage long into the future, and in 10 years or less, we would be well on our way to energy independence.

Or maybe just go with:
higher efficiency = less loss in the form of heat = less global warming