Now let's take a look at some questions that try to relate Arrhenius acids and bases to Bronsted-Lowry acids and bases. The first question says are all Arrhenius acids and bases considered Bronsted-Lowry acids and bases. The answer to this question would be a yes. So for example we have hydrobromic acid. Under the Arrhenius definition it would be an acid since it produces H+1 ion, but it would also be a Bronsted-Lowry acid because it is donating an H+1 ion. So under that definition it would be both an Arrhenius acid and a Bronsted-Lowry acid.
Now sodium hydroxide. Here sodium hydroxide under the Arrhenius acid and base definition is a base because it produces OH-1. Now this OH-1 could accept an H from the water molecule surrounding it. It would also be a Bronsted-Lowry base. Now are all Bronsted-Lowry bases considered Arrhenius bases? The answer here would be a no. We're going to say bases that do not contain OH hydroxide ion are not Arrhenius bases. Here we have ammonia ion. When you put it into water, it doesn't immediately produce OH-1 in the way that we are accustomed to seeing under the Arrhenius definition. Yes, it could accept an H+1 ion from water to create OH-1, but it itself is not releasing OH-1 into the solution.
Now finally, are all Bronsted-Lowry acids considered Arrhenius acids? This would be a yes, because what is a Bronsted-Lowry acid? It is an H+1 donor, so it has H+1 present, meaning that if I put it within an aqueous solution it will release H+1 ions, so it would be an Arrhenius acid too. From this information we can see that Bronsted-Lowry takes a much more broader view of acids and bases than Arrhenius does. Arrhenius is much more limited in its scope. Bronsted-Lowry is much more broad, so we can fit even more compounds under the definition of either an acid or a base.