The second argument used by my uncle was a kind of blend of fuzzy logic and inductive reasoning. The argument essentially looks like this: there is a water problem; keeping a green lawn is not part of the problem; let's find out where the problem lies.

The assumption made here is that the water used to keep lawns green is not part of the water problem. Countering this assumption would require some form of statistical analysis or syllogism. Since my uncle is arguing from a generalization that he apparently discerned at some point, it becomes necessary to correct that generalization. If my uncle is swayed by facts, facts then are what are necessary. One could look to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power -- an authority on the subject -- to find out the statistical analyses.

By doing so, one could also see the benefit of cutting water...
[ View Full Essay]