Analyze Informational Text Unit Test
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)
*Please help I have to get this done today*
To determine which paragraph provides more sound arguments, we need to analyze the claims and evidence provided in each paragraph.
Claim 1 provides a strong argument for banning plastic bags. It highlights the environmental impact of plastic bags, such as their slow decay and the harm they cause to wildlife in lakes, rivers, and oceans. The claim also suggests alternatives like paper bags and reusable cloth bags. The argument is supported by facts and appeals to the reader's sense of responsibility towards the environment.
Claim 2, on the other hand, presents some reasons why plastic bags were initially adopted. It mentions the benefits of plastic bags over paper and cardboard, including saving trees, keeping food fresher, being lighter for shipping, and being safer than glass. While these reasons may have been valid in the past, the claim fails to address the current environmental concerns associated with plastic bags. It suggests using less plastic instead of an outright ban.
In terms of providing sound arguments, claim 1 is more persuasive. It addresses the negative consequences of plastic bags on the environment and wildlife, suggests viable alternatives, and appeals to the reader's sense of responsibility. Claim 2, although it brings up some benefits of plastic bags, fails to acknowledge the current issues and does not present a strong case for keeping them.