read the argument. if we dont recycle, terrible things will happen to our planet. oceans will rise, and our…

read the argument. if we dont recycle, terrible things will happen to our planet. oceans will rise, and our land will be destroyed. ultimately, everything will be set on fire, and the planet will explode. how can this argument be revised to avoid a logical fallacy? by stating how trash buildup will affect the solar system by describing the benefits of recycling by attacking people who do not recycle by giving facts about the history of recycling

read the argument. if we dont recycle, terrible things will happen to our planet. oceans will rise, and our land will be destroyed. ultimately, everything will be set on fire, and the planet will explode. how can this argument be revised to avoid a logical fallacy? by stating how trash buildup will affect the solar system by describing the benefits of recycling by attacking people who do not recycle by giving facts about the history of recycling

Answer

Brief Explanations:

The original argument uses extreme and unsubstantiated claims. Describing the benefits of recycling provides a positive - and more logical - approach rather than using scare - tactics. Stating how trash buildup affects the solar system is off - topic, attacking non - recyclers is an ad hominem fallacy, and facts about recycling history don't address the argument's logic.

Answer:

by describing the benefits of recycling