Use the claims about banning plastic bags to complete the activity.
Claim 1
What do you think about when you toss a plastic bag into the garbage? If you’re like most people, then you probably do not think about much at all. We don’t think about the fact that plastic bags take centuries to decay. We do not think about how many bags end up in lakes, rivers, and oceans, harming wildlife and even causing death. However, we should think about all this. Better yet, we should do something about it: ban the use of plastic bags. If this happens, then we will all feel better knowing that we are not contributing to pollution and harming wildlife. And besides, plastic bags are not a necessity. Paper bags are an alternative, and so are reusable cloth bags.
Claim 2
It seems like we are drowning in plastic bags, but before you decide to ban them, you should remember some of the reasons companies started using plastic back in the 1970s. Before there was plastic, there was paper and cardboard, which are made from trees. So, switching from paper to plastic saved some trees. Plastic also saved people money because it kept food fresher for longer. Also, it is lighter than cardboard or glass, so it was cheaper to ship things wrapped in plastic. Plus, plastic is safer than glass, which tends to break. So, yes, we should be using less plastic, but it does not make sense to ban it until we find a better solution.
Which paragraph provides more sound arguments? Why or why not? Write 3-5 sentences supporting your answer.(4 points)
My response (your welcome btw ) Claim 2 is a more sound argument in my opinion. It states that yes, we should use less plastic but banning it is not the solution currently. I think this is a more sound argument because Claim 1 has a not very sound argument because they use topics that A: everyone understands and tries to do better or B; uses very little evidence but tries to show it off by using big pieces of evidence. While claim 2 has a lot of evidence people didn't know about it also makes claims that it is safer than glass and fewer trees die via more oxygen. For me Claim 2 is a more strong and sound claim.
bearyscary your name and your response is making me lose brain cells
Pls someone I need an answer
np!
just saying this so y'all wont get in trouble but if you copy and paste the teachers come here to see if you cheated....
THANKS YOU SO MUCH “rip bozo”
I need HeEeElLlPpP
Plz help me 🥺
Here’s my response which was slightly inspired by rip bozo (reminder: make sure to change a few words or sentences bc connexus can scan for plagiarism)
In my opinion, claim 2 is a better sound argument. The author states that currently, we should not ban plastic for the purpose of helping trees, but we should definitely decrease the usage. Claim 1 doesn’t have as well of a sound argument; Although it’s usage of larger pieces of evidence, it doesn’t actually include much to support it. The author wanting to ban plastic is a good idea other than the fact trees will be in more danger and will reduce oxygen. In my opinion claim 2 is a stronger sound argument.