The city council of Town X has proposed reducing the city s electric expenses by switching all the lights in public buildings from incandescent bulbs to light emitting diodes LEDs The switch would be made gradually as the old incandescent bulbs burn out a

The city's council has an illogical sequence in his causal chain. He assumed that by replacing the incandescent bulbs with light-emitting diodes(LED), the city's electric expense would be significantly decreased. This seems like a plausible argument at first glance, but, upon closer scrutiny it falls apart. Let's view its components closely.

The first flaw of the argument is that the city's council claimed that the purchase of LED bulbs costed no more than the old ones, he didn't consider that this is not the only associated expenses. For instance, Do the LED bulbs fit into the fixtures? if not, then they need to buy new ones which seems to increase the cost instead of decreasing it, the opposite of the council's expectations.Additionally, the council gave no clues about LED's consumption of electricity. Do they use the same amount of electricity like the old ones do? he said that LED bulbs burn lighter which indicates that they might use more electricity.

Second flaw, the council did not provide any information about the efficacy and durability of the LED bulbs. Do they last for longer time than the old ones. If they burn out quickly and last only for short period of time, then this casts the most doubt on the validity of the argument.

An additional fallacy, The city'council ignore many of the unintended consequences of using the LED bulbs. He claimed that LED burn brighter. One can notice that, bulb that burns more brighter, produce more heat that in turn leads to increase the temperature of the building. As a result increase the use of air conditioners and increase the electric expenses.

Finally, the council's assumption that using LED bulbs is the solution to decrease the expenses sets an either/or fallacy, in which the people should accept his suggestion in order to reduce the expenses and save more money in the future or not. In either case, he failed to support his points.

To sum up, the assumption that LED bulbs would reduce the electric expenses is untenable and unsupported. Unless the council provide more sufficient evidences and detailed consideration to substantiate his assumption, the argument is vulnerable to criticism.