Answers may vary, but should explain your thinking.

The “PRO” article supports its claims with evidence from research by citing a study from the IPCC. It is also clear in the reasoning how the evidence is related to the claim. However, the claim assumes that if the U.S. takes the lead on climate change legislation, other countries will follow. There does not seem to be sufficient evidence to support the idea that other countries will follow the U.S.’s footsteps, especially since there has already been difficulty getting nations to agree.

On the other hand, the “CON” article supports its claim with evidence in the form of facts about growing nations and how their future energy consumption will overshadow any reductions that the U.S. makes today. The author goes on to support another claim by providing evidence and reasoning that point out the need for more debate and deliberation about the issue, as opposed to making swift changes now that will have huge impacts on American lives and negotiations with developing countries. However, the assumption that developing countries will demand that the U.S. make more reductions before they sign on is more speculation than fact.

There are strengths and limitations to both the claims and counterclaims.