Thinking and reading critically - Reading and responding to arguments

Practical argument: A text and anthology - Laurie G. Kirszner, Stephen R. Mandell 2019

Thinking and reading critically
Reading and responding to arguments

A photo shows a bound composition notebook.

The roof of the building reads, Argument. The first pillar reads, Thesis. The second pillar reads, Evidence. The third pillar reads, Refutation, and the fourth pillar reads, Concluding Statement.

AT ISSUE

Does Recycling Really Accomplish Anything?

Recycling is woven into our lives; at home, in school, in public spaces, we’re used to seeing those separate bins for waste disposal. Given that Americans produce about 254 million tons of trash each year, many probably take the advantages of this practice as a given. The United States now has a recycling rate of about 34 percent, which reduces both the garbage in overflowing landfills and the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. There are less obvious benefits, too. In addition to helping the environment, recycling helps create jobs, even as it lowers the amount of energy required to create new products.

But what about the downsides? Critics point out that it is costly, as recycling programs are often prohibitively expensive for small, local communities. Moreover, recycling may be giving us a false sense of “sustainability.” In fact, the process still uses a lot of energy, and its overall benefits to the environment are limited because many large industries still do not recycle. In addition, recycling some waste products (such as electronics) is inefficient or even dangerous, and some products made of recycled materials are low quality.

In this chapter and in the chapter that follows, you will be asked to read essays and study images that shed light on the advantages and limitations of recycling. In the process, you will learn critical-thinking and active reading strategies that will help you learn to examine and interpret texts and images.

Now that you understand the structure of an argumentative essay, you can turn your attention to reading arguments more closely. The arguments you encounter may be the subject of class discussion, or they may be source material for the essays you write. In any case, you will need to know how to get the most out of reading them.

Thinking Critically

When you think critically, you do not simply accept ideas at face value. Instead, you question the ideas you come across, analyzing them in order to understand them better. You also challenge their underlying assumptions and form your own judgments about them. Throughout this book, discussions and readings encourage you to think critically. The box below shows you where in this text to find material that will help you develop your critical-thinking skills.

USING CRITICAL-THINKING SKILLS

Reading (see Chapter 2): When you read a text, you use critical-thinking skills to help you understand what the text says and what it suggests. You ask questions and look for answers, challenging the ideas you read and probing for information. Previewing, highlighting, and annotating are active reading strategies that require you to use critical-thinking skills.

Analyzing Visual Texts (see Chapter 3): When you examine an image, you use critical-thinking skills to help you understand what you are seeing, using previewing, highlighting, and annotating to help you analyze the image and interpret its persuasive message.

Writing a Rhetorical Analysis (see Chapter 4): When you write a rhetorical analysis, you use critical-thinking skills to analyze the individual elements of a text and to help you understand how the writer uses various appeals and rhetorical strategies to influence readers. Critical-thinking skills can also help you to understand the argument’s context. Finally, you use critical-thinking skills to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the argument.

Analyzing an Argument’s Logic (see Chapter 5): When you analyze an argument’s logic, you use critical-thinking skills to help you understand the relationships among ideas and the form the argument takes as well as to determine whether its conclusions are both valid and true. You also use critical-thinking skills to identify any logical fallacies that may undermine the argument.

Writing an Essay (see Chapter 7): When you plan an essay, you use critical-thinking skills to probe a topic, to consider what you already know and what you need to find out, to identify your essay’s main idea, and to decide how to support it—that is, which ideas to include and how to arrange them. As you draft and revise, you use critical-thinking skills to evaluate your supporting evidence, to make sure your arguments are reasonable and fair, and to decide whether ideas are arranged effectively within paragraphs and in the essay as a whole. Freewriting, brainstorming, clustering, and outlining are activities that require you to use critical-thinking skills.

Refuting Opposing Arguments (see Chapter 7): When you refute opposing arguments, you use critical-thinking skills to identify and evaluate arguments against your position—and to challenge or possibly argue against them.

Evaluating Sources (see Chapter 8): When you evaluate sources, you use critical-thinking skills to assess your sources in terms of their accuracy, credibility, objectivity, and comprehensiveness and to determine whether a source is trustworthy and appropriate for your purpose and audience.

Summarizing (see Chapter 9): When you summarize a passage, you use critical-thinking skills to identify the writer’s main idea.

Paraphrasing (see Chapter 9): When you paraphrase a passage, you use critical-thinking skills to identify the writer’s main idea, the most important supporting details and examples, and the ways in which key ideas are related.

Synthesizing (see Chapter 9): When you synthesize material, you use critical-thinking skills to analyze sources and integrate them with your own ideas.

Reading Critically

When you read an argument, you should approach it with a critical eye. Contrary to what you may think, reading critically does not mean arguing with every idea you encounter. What it does mean is commenting on, questioning, and evaluating these ideas.

As a critical reader, you do not simply accept that what you are reading is true. Instead, you assess the accuracy of the facts in your sources, and you consider whether opinions are convincingly supported by evidence. You try to judge the appropriateness and reliability of a writer’s sources, and you evaluate the scope and depth of the evidence and the relevance of that evidence to the topic. You also consider opposing arguments carefully, weighing them against the arguments developed in your sources. Finally, you watch out for possible bias in your sources—and you work hard to keep your own biases in check.

GUIDELINES FOR READING CRITICALLY

As a critical reader, you need to read carefully, keeping the following guidelines in mind:

§ Assess the accuracy of a source’s information, as well as the authors and publishers of the source itself.

§ Be sure opinions are supported convincingly.

§ Evaluate the supporting evidence.

§ Consider opposing arguments.

§ Be on the lookout for bias—in your sources and in yourself.

Becoming an Active Reader

Reading critically means being an active rather than a passive reader. Being an active reader means participating in the reading process by taking the time to preview a source and then to read it carefully, highlighting and annotating it. This process will prepare you to discuss the source with others and to respond in writing to what you have read.

Previewing

When you approach an argument for the first time, you preview it, skimming the text to help you form a general impression of the writer’s position on the issue, the argument’s key supporting points, and the context for the writer’s remarks.

Begin by looking at the title, the first paragraph (which often contains a thesis statement or overview), and the last paragraph (which often includes a concluding statement or a summary of the writer’s key points). Also look at the topic sentences of the essay’s body paragraphs. In addition, note any headings, words set in boldface or italic type, and bulleted or numbered lists that appear in the body of the argument. If the argument includes visuals—charts, tables, graphs, photos, and so on—look at them as well. Finally, if an argument includes a headnote or background on the author or on the text, be sure to skim this material. It can help you to understand the context in which the author is writing.

When you have finished previewing the argument, you should have a good general sense of what the writer wants to communicate.

Close Reading

When you finish previewing the argument, you are ready to read through it more carefully. As you read, look for words and phrases that help to shape the structure of the argument and signal the arrangement of the writer’s ideas. These words and phrases will help you to understand the flow of ideas as well as the content and emphasis of the argument.

COMPREHENSION CLUES

§ Repeated words and phrases

§ Phrases that signal emphasis (the primary reason, the most important problem)

§ Words and phrases that signal addition (also, in addition, furthermore)

§ Words and phrases that signal time sequence (first, after that, next, then, finally)

§ Words and phrases that identify causes and effects (because, as a result, for this reason)

§ Words and phrases that introduce examples (for example, for instance)

§ Words and phrases that signal comparison (likewise, similarly, in the same way)

§ Words and phrases that signal contrast (although, in contrast, on the other hand)

§ Words and phrases that signal contradiction (however, on the contrary)

§ Words and phrases that signal a move from general to specific (in fact, specifically, in other words)

§ Words and phrases that introduce summaries or conclusions (all things considered, to sum up, in conclusion)

EXERCISE 2.1 PREVIEWING AN ESSAY

“The Reign of Recycling” is a New York Times opinion essay by John Tierney. In this essay, which begins on the following page, Tierney argues that although recycling remains popular, it may actually not be worth the time and trouble it requires.

In preparation for class discussion and other activities that will be assigned later in this chapter, preview the essay. Then, read it carefully, and answer the questions that follow it.

THE REIGN OF RECYCLING

JOHN TIERNEY

This article appeared in the New York Times on October 3, 2015.

If you live in the United States, you probably do some form of recycling. It’s likely that you separate paper from plastic and glass and metal. You rinse the bottles and cans, and you might put food scraps in a container destined for a composting facility. As you sort everything into the right bins, you probably assume that recycling is helping your community and protecting the environment. But is it? Are you in fact wasting your time?

In 1996, I wrote a long article for the New York Times Magazine arguing that the recycling process as we carried it out was wasteful. I presented plenty of evidence that recycling was costly and ineffectual, but its defenders said that it was unfair to rush to judgment. Noting that the modern recycling movement had really just begun just a few years earlier, they predicted it would flourish as the industry matured and the public learned how to recycle properly.

So, what’s happened since then? While it’s true that the recycling message has reached more people than ever, when it comes to the bottom line, both economically and environmentally, not much has changed at all.

Despite decades of exhortations and mandates, it’s still typically more expensive for municipalities to recycle household waste than to send it to a landfill. Prices for recyclable materials have plummeted because of lower oil prices and reduced demand for them overseas. The slump has forced some recycling companies to shut plants and cancel plans for new technologies. The mood is so gloomy that one industry veteran tried to cheer up her colleagues this summer with an article in a trade journal titled, “Recycling Is Not Dead!”

While politicians set higher and higher goals, the national rate of recycling has stagnated in recent years. Yes, it’s popular in affluent neighborhoods like Park Slope in Brooklyn and in cities like San Francisco, but residents of the Bronx and Houston don’t have the same fervor for sorting garbage in their spare time.

The future for recycling looks even worse. As cities move beyond recycling paper and metals, and into glass, food scraps, and assorted plastics, the costs rise sharply while the environmental benefits decline and sometimes vanish. “If you believe recycling is good for the planet and that we need to do more of it, then there’s a crisis to confront,” says David P. Steiner, the chief executive officer of Waste Management, the largest recycler of household trash in the United States. “Trying to turn garbage into gold costs a lot more than expected. We need to ask ourselves: What is the goal here?”

Recycling has been relentlessly promoted as a goal in and of itself: an unalloyed public good and private virtue that is indoctrinated in students from kindergarten through college. As a result, otherwise well-informed and educated people have no idea of the relative costs and benefits.

They probably don’t know, for instance, that to reduce carbon emissions, you’ll accomplish a lot more by sorting paper and aluminum cans than by worrying about yogurt containers and half-eaten slices of pizza. Most people also assume that recycling plastic bottles must be doing lots for the planet. They’ve been encouraged by the Environmental Protection Agency, which assures the public that recycling plastic results in less carbon being released into the atmosphere.

But how much difference does it make? Here’s some perspective: To offset the greenhouse impact of one passenger’s round-trip flight between New York and London, you’d have to recycle roughly 40,000 plastic bottles, assuming you fly coach. If you sit in business- or first-class, where each passenger takes up more space, it could be more like 100,000.

Even those statistics might be misleading. New York and other cities instruct people to rinse the bottles before putting them in the recycling bin, but the E.P.A.’s life-cycle calculation doesn’t take that water into account. That single omission can make a big difference, according to Chris Goodall, the author of “How to Live a Low-Carbon Life.” Mr. Goodall calculates that if you wash plastic in water that was heated by coal-derived, electricity, then the net effect of your recycling could be more carbon in the atmosphere.

To many public officials, recycling is a question of morality, not cost-benefit analysis. Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York declared that by 2030 the city would no longer send any garbage to landfills. “This is the way of the future if we’re going to save our earth,” he explained, while announcing that New York would join San Francisco, Seattle, and other cities in moving toward a “zero waste” policy, which would require an unprecedented level of recycling.

The national rate of recycling rose during the 1990s to 25 percent, meeting the goal set by an E.P.A. official, J. Winston Porter. He advised state officials that no more than about 35 percent of the nation’s trash was worth recycling, but some ignored him and set goals of 50 percent and higher. Most of those goals were never met and the national rate has been stuck around 34 percent in recent years.

“It makes sense to recycle commercial cardboard and some paper, as well as selected metals and plastics,” he says, “But other materials rarely make sense, including food, waste and other compostables. The zero-waste goal makes no sense at all—it’s very expensive with almost no real environmental benefit.”

One of the original goals of the recycling movement was to avert a supposed crisis because there was no room left in the nation’s landfills. But that media-inspired fear was never realistic in a country with so much open space. In reporting the 1996 article I found that all the trash generated by Americans for the next 1,000 years would fit on one-tenth of 1 percent of the land available for grazing. And that tiny amount of land wouldn’t be lost forever, because landfills are typically covered with grass and converted to parkland, like the Freshkills Park being created on Staten Island. The United States Open tennis tournament is played on the site of an old landfill—and one that never had the linings and other environmental safeguards required today.

Though most cities shun landfills, they have been welcomed in rural communities that reap large economic benefits (and have plenty of greenery to buffer residents from the sights and smells). Consequently, the great landfill shortage has not arrived, and neither have the shortages of raw materials that were supposed to make recycling profitable.

With the economic rationale gone, advocates for recycling have switched to environmental arguments. Researchers have calculated that there are indeed such benefits to recycling, but not in the way that many people imagine.

Most of these benefits do not come from reducing the need for landfills and incinerators. A modern well-lined landfill in a rural area can have relatively little environmental impact. Decomposing garbage releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, but landfill operators have started capturing it and using it to generate electricity. Modern incinerators, while politically unpopular in the United States, release so few pollutants that they’ve been widely accepted in the eco-conscious countries of Northern Europe and Japan for generating clean energy.

Moreover, recycling operations have their own environmental costs, like extra trucks on the road and pollution from recycling operations. Composting facilities around the country have inspired complaints about nauseating odors, swarming rats, and defecating seagulls. After New York City started sending food waste to be composted in Delaware, the unhappy neighbors of the composting plant successfully campaigned to shut it down last year.

The environmental benefits of recycling come chiefly from reducing the need to manufacture new products—less mining, drilling, and logging. But that’s not so appealing to the workers in those industries and to the communities that have accepted the environmental trade-offs that come with those jobs.

Nearly everyone, though, approves of one potential benefit of recycling: reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. Its advocates often cite an estimate by the E.P.A. that recycling municipal solid waste in the United States saves the equivalent of 186 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, comparable to removing the emissions of 39 million cars.

According to the E.P.A.’s estimates, virtually all the greenhouse benefits—more than 90 percent—come from just a few materials: paper, cardboard, and metals like the aluminum in soda cans. That’s because recycling one ton of metal or paper saves about three tons of carbon dioxide, a much bigger payoff than the other materials analyzed by the E.P.A. Recycling one ton of plastic saves only slightly more than one ton of carbon dioxide. A ton of food saves a little less than a ton. For glass, you have to recycle three tons in order to get about one ton of greenhouse benefits. Worst of all is yard waste: it takes 20 tons of it to save a single ton of carbon dioxide.

Once you exclude paper products and metals, the total annual savings in the United States from recycling everything else in municipal trash—plastics, glass, food, yard trimmings, textiles, rubber, leather—is only two-tenths of 1 percent of America’s carbon footprint.

“As a business, recycling is on the wrong side of two long-term global economic trends.”

As a business, recycling is on the wrong side of two long-term global economic trends. For centuries, the real cost of labor has been increasing while the real cost of raw materials has been declining. That’s why we can afford to buy so much more stuff than our ancestors could. As a labor-intensive activity, recycling is an increasingly expensive way to produce materials that are less and less valuable.

Recyclers have tried to improve the economics by automating the sorting process, but they’ve been frustrated by politicians eager to increase recycling rates by adding new materials of little value. The more types of trash that are recycled, the more difficult it becomes to sort the valuable from the worthless.

In New York City, the net cost of recycling a ton of trash is now $300 more than it would cost to bury the trash instead. That adds up to millions of extra dollars per year—about half the budget of the parks department—that New Yorkers are spending for the privilege of recycling. That money could buy far more valuable benefits, including more significant reductions in greenhouse emissions.

So what is a socially conscious, sensible person to do?

It would be much simpler and more effective to impose the equivalent of a carbon tax on garbage, as Thomas C. Kinnaman has proposed after conducting what is probably the most thorough comparison of the social costs of recycling, landfilling and incineration. Dr. Kinnaman, an economist at Bucknell University, considered everything from environmental damage to the pleasure that some people take in recycling (the “warm glow” that makes them willing to pay extra to do it).

He concludes that the social good would be optimized by subsidizing the recycling of some metals, and by imposing a $15 tax on each ton of trash that goes to the landfill. That tax would offset the environmental costs, chiefly the greenhouse impact, and allow each municipality to make a guilt-free choice based on local economics and its citizens’ wishes. The result, Dr. Kinnaman predicts, would be a lot less recycling than there is today.

Then why do so many public officials keep vowing to do more of it? Special-interest politics is one reason—pressure from green groups—but it’s also because recycling intuitively appeals to many voters: It makes people feel virtuous, especially affluent people who feel guilty about their enormous environmental footprint. It is less an ethical activity than a religious ritual, like the ones performed by Catholics to obtain indulgences for their sins.

Religious rituals don’t need any practical justification for the believers who perform them voluntarily. But many recyclers want more than just the freedom to practice their religion. They want to make these rituals mandatory for everyone else, too, with stiff fines for sinners who don’t sort properly. Seattle has become so aggressive that the city is being sued by residents who maintain that the inspectors rooting through their trash are violating their constitutional right to privacy.

It would take legions of garbage police to enforce a zero-waste society, but true believers insist that’s the future. When Mayor de Blasio promised to eliminate garbage in New York, he said it was “ludicrous” and “outdated” to keep sending garbage to landfills. Recycling, he declared, was the only way for New York to become “a truly sustainable city.”

But cities have been burying garbage for thousands of years, and it’s still the easiest and cheapest solution for trash. The recycling movement is floundering, and its survival depends on continual subsidies, sermons and policing. How can you build a sustainable city with a strategy that can’t even sustain itself?

Identifying the Elements of Argument

An illustration shows a building with a triangular roof and four pillars.

The roof of the building reads, Argument. The first pillar reads, Thesis. The second pillar reads, Evidence. The third pillar reads, Refutation, and the fourth pillar reads, Concluding Statement.

1. What is Tierney’s thesis? Restate it in your own words.

2. What evidence does Tierney present to support his thesis?

3. What arguments against his position does Tierney identify? How does he refute them?

4. Paraphrase Tierney’s concluding statement.

Highlighting

After you read an argument, the next step is to read through it again, this time highlighting as you read. When you highlight, you use underlining and symbols to identify the essay’s most important points. (Note that the word highlighting does not necessarily refer to the underlining done with a yellow highlighter pen.) This active reading strategy will help you to understand the writer’s ideas and to see connections among those ideas when you reread.

How do you know what to highlight? As a general rule, you look for the same signals that you looked for when you read the argument the first time—for example, the essay’s thesis and topic sentences and the words and phrases that identify the writer’s intent and emphasis. This time, however, you physically mark these elements and use various symbols to indicate your reactions to them.

SUGGESTIONS FOR HIGHLIGHTING

§ Underline key ideas—for example, ideas stated in topic sentences.

§ Box or circle words or phrases you want to remember.

§ Place a check mark or a star next to an important idea.

§ Place a double check mark or double star next to an especially significant idea.

§ Draw lines or arrows to connect related ideas.

§ Insert a question mark near an unfamiliar reference or a word you need to look up.

§ Number the writer’s key supporting points or examples.

IT’S TIME TO PHASE OUT SINGLE-USE PLASTIC

Here is how a student, Neena Thomason, highlighted the Los Angeles Times editorial “It’s Time to Phase Out All Single-Use Plastic,” which appears below. Thomason was preparing to write an essay about the advantages and disadvantages of recycling. She began her highlighting by underlining and starring the thesis statement (para. 4). After boxing the distinctive phrase “unholy tonnage” in the editorial’s first line, she went on to underline key pieces of information, starring and placing check marks beside the points she considered the most important. She also circled a word (“pernicious,” 4) and a term (“zero sum game,” 9) with which she was unfamiliar and added question marks to remind her to look them up. Finally, she underlined and starred the editorial’s strong concluding statement.

This essay first appeared in the Los Angeles Times on February 20, 2018.

An essay with annotations in parentheses.

The essay continues as follows:

The article is titled, ’It’s Time to Phase Out All Single-Use Plastic’. Text reads as follows:

First paragraph: Faced with an (underline begins) unholy tonnage of chip bags, soda bottles, takeout containers, and other disposable plastic items flowing into our landfills and our waters (underline ends), winding up in wildlife, drinking water, and food, policymakers in California have tried reining in plastic waste bit by bit. For example, more than 100 cities have adopted restrictions on polystyrene takeout containers, and the state has banned single-use plastic grocery bags. (The phrase ’unholy tonnage’ is boxed)

Second paragraph: (Underline beings) Considering the magnitude of the problem, however, this item-by-item, city-by-city approach isn’t going to cut it (underline ends).

The continuation of the essay, with annotations in parenthesis, from the previous page.

The essay continues as follows:

Third paragraph: The state and local rules certainly have raised public awareness about the problem. Denying free plastic bags at checkout or providing plastic straws only on request sends consumers an important message that there’s a bigger cost to these everyday items than they may have considered. But the actual flow of trash has been disrupted only modestly.

Fourth paragraph: (Underline begins) It’s going to take more than a smattering of bans on single items to cure society of its disposable-plastic habit (Underline ends and the sentence is annotated with a tick mark). The sheer volume of plastic trash now littering Earth has become impossible to ignore. (Underline begins) It’s time for environmentalists, policymaker, and elected officials to start planning a broader response: phasing out all single-use plastic, not just the most pernicious (underline ends and the sentence is annotated with an asterisk; the word ’pernicious’ is circled and annotated with a question mark).

Fifth paragraph: That’s right, all of it. If that sounds like a pipe dream, (underline ends) consider what’s happening across the pond (underline ends). Last month, British Prime Minister Theresa May outlined a plan to eliminate plastic waste by 2042. Queen Elizabeth II kicked it off this month by banning plastic straws and bottles from royal estates, and the Church of England supported a nascent social media campaign, hash tag plasticlesslent, to encourage its flock to give up plastic for Lent this year. Simultaneously, the European Union announced its own plan to significantly reduce plastic waste, including adopting a possible plastic tax, in a direct response to the news that China, the largest importer of plastic recyclable material, was no longer accepting “foreign garbage.”

Sixth paragraph: We don’t expect President Trump or Congress to follow suit, even though it’s impossible to pretend that the trash filling up in the ocean is naturally occurring. (Underline begins) That leaves it to states like California to step in (underline ends; the sentence is annotated with a tick mark).

Seventh paragraph: (Underline begins) One strategy is for lawmakers to adopt a reduction goal (underline ends), as they did for greenhouse gas emissions and energy derived from fossil fuels, and then to adopt specific programs to meet that goal. It’s a simple but effective approach to tackling such a formidable environmental threat. Also, it puts makers of disposable plastic on notice, so they can’t complain they didn’t have time to adapt or move into other, less harmful product lines.

Eighth paragraph: But even forewarned, the plastic industry isn’t likely to take an assault on its bottom line well. (Underline begins) Plastic makers (underline ends) spent millions of dollars trying to stop the state from banning single-use plastic bags. Imagine what they might unleash if all their disposable plastic products were threatened. As part of that, they (underline begins) will no doubt argue, as they did in the plastic bag fight, that the efforts to clean up plastic waste would mean lost jobs (underline ends).

Ninth paragraph: But it’s not a zero-sum game. (Underline begins) Cutting, jobs on a disposable plastic product line doesn’t automatically translate into fewer people employed. If the door closes on polystyrene takeout containers, for example, it will open for cardboard and other biodegradable alternatives (underline ends; text is annotated with a tick mark; the phrase ’a zero-sum game’ is circled and annotated with a question mark.)

Tenth paragraph: No one expects consumers to give up convenience completely. In fact, the market for bio-plastic alternatives, which are made from cornstarch and other biodegradable sources, is already growing thanks to public awareness and the sporadic efforts to curb plastic waste.

Eleventh paragraph: (Underline begins) Opponents will insist that the answer is just to encourage more recycling. Not only is recycling not the answer (underline ends; text is annotated with a tick mark. End note) (see China’s diminished appetite for imported plastic trash), (underline begins) it has only enabled our addiction to convenient, disposable plastic packaging to deepen for some 60 years (underline ends).

The continuation of the essay, from the previous page, with an annotation in parenthesis.

The essay continues as follows:

Twelfth paragraph: Yes, it’s scary to think about a world where one has to carry around a reusable bag or worry about a paper drinking straw falling apart mid. . . . Oh, wait. No, it’s not. (Underline begins) Knowing that every piece of plastic manufactured on Earth is still with us and that if we don’t cut back now, there will eventually be more plastic than fish in the ocean — that’s the truly frightening thought (underline ends; text is annotated with an asterisk).

EXERCISE 2.2 EVALUATING A STUDENT’S HIGHLIGHTING

Look carefully at Neena Thomason’s highlighting of the Los Angeles Times editorial on pages 71—73. How would your own highlighting of this editorial be similar to or different from hers?

EXERCISE 2.3 HIGHLIGHTING AN ESSAY

Reread “The Reign of Recycling” (pp. 66—70). As you read, highlight the essay by underlining and starring important points, boxing or circling key words, writing question marks beside references that need further explanation, and drawing lines and arrows to connect related ideas.

Annotating

As you highlight, you should also annotate what you are reading. Annotating means making notes—of your questions, reactions, and ideas for discussion or writing—in the margins or between the lines. Keeping this kind of informal record of ideas as they occur to you will prepare you for class discussion and provide a useful source of material when you write.

As you read an argument and think critically about what you are reading, you can use the questions in the following checklist to help you make useful annotations.

CHECKLIST

Questions for Annotating

· What issue is the writer focusing on?

· Does the writer take a clear stand on this issue?

· What is the writer’s thesis?

· What is the writer’s purpose (his or her reason for writing)?

· What kind of audience is the writer addressing?

· Does the argument appear in a popular periodical or in a scholarly journal?

· Does the writer seem to assume readers will agree with the essay’s position?

· What evidence does the writer use to support the essay’s thesis? Does the writer include enough evidence?

· Does the writer consider (and refute) opposing arguments?

· Do you understand the writer’s vocabulary?

· Do you understand the writer’s references?

· Do you agree with the points the writer makes?

· Do the views the writer expresses agree or disagree with the views presented in other essays you have read?

IT’S TIME TO PHASE OUT SINGLE-USE PLASTIC

THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD

The following pages, which reproduce Neena Thomason’s highlighting of the Los Angeles Times editorial on pages 71—73, also include her marginal annotations. In these annotations, Thomason put the editorial’s thesis and some of its key points into her own words and recorded questions that she thought she might explore further. She also added definitions of the two items she questioned when she highlighted. Finally, she identified two arguments against the editorial’s position and its refutation of those arguments.

This essay first appeared in the Los Angeles Times on February 20, 2018.

An essay with annotations in parentheses.

The essay continues as follows:

First paragraph: Faced with an (underline begins) unholy tonnage of chip bags, soda bottles, takeout containers, and other disposable plastic items flowing into our landfills and our waters (underline ends), winding up in wildlife, drinking water, and food, policymakers in California have tried reining in plastic waste bit by bit. For example, more than 100 cities have adopted restrictions on polystyrene takeout containers, and the state has banned single-use plastic grocery bags. (The phrase ’unholy tonnage’ is boxed; a margin note corresponding to the paragraph reads, Current restrictions.)

Second paragraph: (Underline beings) Considering the magnitude of the problem, however, this item-by-item, city-by-city approach isn’t going to cut it (underline ends).

Third paragraph: The state and local rules certainly have raised public awareness about the problem. Denying free plastic bags at checkout or providing plastic straws only on request sends consumers an important message that there’s a bigger cost to these everyday items than they may have considered. But the actual flow of trash has been disrupted only modestly. (A margin note corresponding to the paragraph reads, Limitations of current restrictions.)

Fourth paragraph: (Underline begins) It’s going to take more than a smattering of bans on single items to cure society of its disposable-plastic habit (Underline ends and the sentence is annotated with a tick mark). The sheer volume of plastic trash now littering Earth has become impossible to ignore. (Underline begins) It’s time for environmentalists, policymaker, and elected officials to start planning a broader response: phasing out all single-use plastic, not just the most pernicious (underline ends and the sentence is annotated with an asterisk; the word ’pernicious’ is circled and annotated with a question mark; a margin note corresponding to the paragraph reads, harmful Thesis: All single-use plastic should be eliminated).

Fifth paragraph: (A margin note corresponding to the first sentence reads, Actions in England and EU. ) That’s right, all of it. If that sounds like a pipe dream, (underline ends) consider what’s happening across the pond (underline ends). Last month, British Prime Minister Theresa May outlined a plan to eliminate plastic waste by 2042. Queen Elizabeth II kicked it off this month by banning plastic straws and bottles from royal estates, and the Church of England supported a nascent social media campaign, hash tag plasticlesslent, to encourage its flock to give up plastic for Lent this year. Simultaneously, the European Union announced its own plan to significantly reduce plastic waste, including adopting a possible plastic tax, in a direct response to the news that China, the largest importer of plastic recyclable material, was no longer accepting “foreign garbage.” (A margin note corresponding to the sentence reads, What has been done in other U.S. states?)

The continuation of essay, from the previous page, with an annotation in parenthesis.

The essay continues as follows:

Sixth paragraph: We don’t expect President Trump or Congress to follow suit, even though it’s impossible to pretend that the trash filling up in the ocean is naturally occurring (a corresponding margin note reads, Why not?). (Underline begins) That leaves it to states like California to step in (underline ends; the sentence is annotated with a tick mark).

Seventh paragraph: (Underline begins) One strategy is for lawmakers to adopt a reduction goal (underline ends; a corresponding margin note reads, Possible action), as they did for greenhouse gas emissions and energy derived from fossil fuels, and then to adopt specific programs to meet that goal. It’s a simple but effective approach to tackling such a formidable environmental threat. Also, it puts makers of disposable plastic on notice, so they can’t complain they didn’t have time to adapt or move into other, less harmful product lines.

Eighth paragraph: But even forewarned, the plastic industry isn’t likely to take an assault on its bottom line well (a corresponding margin note reads, Problem: Likely industry Response. End note.). (Underline begins) Plastic makers (underline ends) spent millions of dollars trying to stop the state from banning single-use plastic bags. Imagine what they might unleash if all their disposable plastic products were threatened. As part of that, they (underline begins) will no doubt argue, as they did in the plastic bag fight, that the efforts to clean up plastic waste would mean lost jobs (underline ends; a corresponding margin note reads, opposing argument).

Ninth paragraph: But it’s not a zero-sum game. (Underline begins) Cutting, jobs on a disposable plastic product line doesn’t automatically transLATe into fewer people employed. If the door closes on polystyrene takeout containers, for example, it will open for cardboard and other biodegradable alternatives (underline ends; text is annotated with a tick mark; the phrase ’a zero-sum game’ is circled and annotated with a question mark; a margin note corresponding to the paragraph reads, situation in which each side’s gain or loss is exactly balanced by the other side’s.)

Tenth paragraph: No one expects consumers to give up convenience completely. In fact, the market for bio-plastic alternatives, which are made from cornstarch and other biodegradable sources, is already growing thanks to public awareness and the sporadic efforts to curb plastic waste (a corresponding margin note reads, Refutation).

Eleventh paragraph: (Underline begins) Opponents will insist that the answer is just to encourage more recycling. Not only is recycling not the answer (underline ends; text is annotated with a tick mark; a corresponding margin note reads, Opposing argument. End note) (see China’s diminished appetite for imported plastic trash), (underline begins) it has only enabled our addiction to convenient, disposable plastic packaging to deepen for some 60 years (underline ends; a corresponding margin note reads, Refutation).

Twelfth paragraph: Yes, it’s scary to think about a world where one has to carry around a reusable bag or worry about a paper drinking straw falling apart mid. . . . Oh, wait. No, it’s not. (Underline begins) Knowing that every piece of plastic manufactured on Earth is still with us and that if we don’t cut back now, there will eventually be more plastic than fish in the ocean — that’s the truly frightening thought (underline ends; text is annotated with an asterisk; a corresponding margin note reads, Prediction for future w/o action).

EXERCISE 2.4 ANNOTATING AN ESSAY

Reread John Tierney’s “The Reign of Recycling” (pp. 66—70). As you read, refer to the “Questions for Annotating” checklist (p. 73), and use them as a guide as you write your own reactions and questions in the margins of Tierney’s essay. In your annotations, note where you agree or disagree with Tierney, and briefly explain why. Quickly summarize any points that you think are particularly important. Look up any unfamiliar words or references you have identified, and write down brief definitions or explanations. Think about these annotations as you prepare to discuss “The Reign of Recycling” in class (and, eventually, to write about it).

EXERCISE 2.5 EVALUATING YOUR HIGHLIGHTING

Exchange books with another student, and read his or her highlighting and annotating. How are your written responses similar to the other student’s? How are they different? Do your classmate’s responses help you to see anything new about Tierney’s essay?

EXERCISE 2.6 THINKING CRITICALLY: ANALYZING AN ARGUMENT

The following essay, “Waste Not … ?” by Bob Holmes, focuses on how to recycle in an environmentally responsible manner. Read the letter, highlighting and annotating it.

Now, consider how this essay is similar to and different from John Tierney’s essay (pp. 66—70). First, identify the writer’s thesis, and restate it in your own words. Then, consider his views on recycling and his recommendations for supporting and encouraging the practice.

Where does Holmes identify limitations of recycling? Are the problems he identifies the same ones Tierney discusses? Finally, consider how Holmes’s purpose for writing is different from Tierney’s.

WASTE NOT … ?

BOB HOLMES

This essay was published on July 22, 2017, in the journal New Scientist.

Like altruism, The Beatles, and chocolate, recycling is universally acknowledged as a good thing. For many of us, it is a way of life. Recycling rates have been rising since the 1970s, and in some places, including Germany, the Netherlands, and California, more than half of all domestic waste is recycled. But now some people are challenging the received wisdom with difficult questions. How do nonrecyclable styrofoam coffee cups compare with paper or ceramic ones, when all the costs of manufacturing are included? Is it worth recycling materials such as glass and plastic that yield only small environmental benefits? Might landfill be a greener option for plastic, much of which is trucked to seaports and shipped to China for recycling? If you’ve been left wondering whether it’s worth it, here’s what you need to know to make up your mind.

1. Which materials are worth recycling?

From the most basic environmental point of view, all materials are worth recycling, because this reduces the need for energy-intensive mining and smelting of virgin materials. That makes a huge difference for some things—notably aluminum—but even recycling glass leads to a small energy saving and consequent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. Recycling can also provide a reliable, nonimported source of scarce resources such as the rare earth metals that are crucial parts of touchscreens and other high-tech devices.

However, the answer gets muddier when we consider economics. The price of recycled material fluctuates wildly, and some often aren’t profitable to recycle, especially if the recovered material has to be shipped long distances to a reprocessing plant. Waste managers often have to pay recyclers to take glass off their hands, for example. That can make virgin glass look like a better deal—but only because we often fail to include the environmental costs of mining sand and the carbon emissions from glassmaking furnaces. Similarly, plastics are often reprocessed in China, so proximity to a seaport may dictate whether it is profitable to recycle them.

Other low-value materials such as wood and textiles need to be clean to be recyclable. The extra effort and expense required to separate them from general waste means they often end up in landfill.

2. Can we make landfills greener?

Landfill sites emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas. A growing number capture this and convert it to energy but even in the most efficient systems up to 10 percent escapes. In the U.S. landfill accounts for 18 percent of methane emissions, making it the third-largest source of methane emissions after the fossil-fuel industry and livestock. What’s more, most of the methane produced in landfill sites comes from organic waste, which can be disposed of in greener ways. The simplest is composting, but the carbon in organic waste can also be converted to carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide by high-temperature, high-pressure processes. This can then be reconstituted into liquid fuels such as ethanol or methanol, or used as feedstock in other industrial processes. In Edmonton, Canada, for example, one trash-to-methanol process is making headway. According to one calculation, the product has the smallest carbon footprint of any liquid fuel, when methane emissions avoided by not landfilling the waste are included.

3. Why do I have to separate my recyclables?

Keeping recyclables separate from the rest of your rubbish reduces contamination and makes recycling more effective. Recycling companies like it if we also segregate different types of recyclables because then they don’t have to incur the extra expense of doing this.

Separate collections of organic waste, recycling, and other rubbish can make waste-handling more efficient, Kitchen waste is dense and self-compacting, so organics can be collected frequently with simple vehicles. With the stinky organics gone, recycling and other rubbish can be collected less often—even once a month or two—which makes more efficient use of expensive compactor trucks.

But the more complex the household sorting task becomes, the more likely householders are to give up and simply pitch something into the rubbish. As a result of this trade-off, local authorities often lump all recycling into a single bin, or just separate paper and cardboard from plastic, metal, and glass.

4. What if my carefully segregated load is contaminated?

Everyone makes mistakes, and recyclers accept a certain amount of contamination. But too much of it can downgrade the quality of the batch and reduce the price reprocessors will pay. In practical terms, that means you should take reasonable steps to rinse and sort your recyclables according to your waste—management system’s protocol, but don’t obsess over every last decision.

Pay particular attention, however, to instructions on how to handle plastic wraps and plastic bags, because these can dog up the shredding and sorting machinery in some systems. If your local authority asks you not to put them in the recycling bin, don’t.

5. Does recycling keep plastic from polluting the ocean?

Most of the plastic that ends up in the oceans is “leakage”—the stuff that gets tossed out of car windows, dropped on the street, or otherwise escapes the waste management system. That accounts for 32 percent of global plastic packaging. So, if plastic is recycled—or even sent to landfill or burned—it should stay out of the ocean.

6. Is burning rubbish in incinerators better than dumping it?

Incinerators reduce the volume of waste that might otherwise be dumped into landfill sites, and most also generate heat for electricity or heating homes. Modern waste-to-energy incinerators are very clean, so toxic emissions aren’t generally an issue. But then modern landfill sites generally don’t leach toxins into their environment either. Incinerators do, however, release a lot of carbon dioxide for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced—more than many coal-fired power plants, in fact. And as the electricity grid shifts more towards renewables, burning trash to generate electricity is likely to look increasingly less attractive.

Another consideration is that burning waste may reduce levels of recycling. Cities that rely too heavily on incineration can find themselves trapped by the system’s demands. “These things are hungry,” says Thomas Kinnaman, an environmental economist at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania. “They need lots and lots of fuel to stay efficient, and they’re increasingly looking at that recycling pile.”

7. Is there any point to composting?

Composting is one of the most useful things you can do. Compacted, airless landfill sites are the perfect breeding ground for anaerobic bacteria called methanogens that feed on organic waste. For every kilogram they digest, they produce about 2 kilograms of the powerful greenhouse gas methane. That doesn’t happen in a compost bin. Yet households in the UK binned 7.3 million tonnes of food waste in 2015, two-thirds of which could have been composted. Separating kitchen scraps, garden waste, and other organic waste from the rest of the rubbish stream means they can be used to generate high-quality compost to increase soil fertility for crops and gardens. Organic waste contaminated by household chemicals, glass, metal fragment, and the like may only produce compost fit for restoring industrial sites and roadsides.

8. Isn’t “recycling” a misnomer?

“Can we create a world without rubbish?”

Some materials, such as glass and aluminum, can be melted and recast into new products that are just as good as those from virgin material. But others can only be “downcycled” into products of lower quality than the original. Each time paper is recycled, for example, its fibers break into shorter lengths so it can be used only for increasingly low-quality papers such as newspaper and toilet paper. Most plastics are downcycled into products that cannot themselves be recycled. In fact, only about 15 percent of recycled plastics end up in products of similar quality. Researchers are working on finding new ways to chemically break down plastics into their component molecules so that they can be rebuilt into high-quality material.

There is a move to redesign products and packaging to minimize waste. In the meantime, environmentally aware consumers can reduce, reuse, avoid disposable items and repair broken ones instead of throwing them away.

Towards Zero Waste

Can we create a world without rubbish?

One of the big impediments to recycling is products made of mixed materials that can’t easily be separated—but solutions are on the way. Sachets are a prime example. People living in poorer countries often purchase single-use sachets of things like ketchup and detergent because they cannot afford to buy in bulk. These sachets need to be durable as well as impermeable, so they are often made of layers of different materials. Hundreds of billions are produced annually. Unilever, a major manufacturer of sacheted products, pledged earlier this year to make all of its packaging recyclable by 2025, and is developing new ways to dissolve the polyethylene out of used sachets so that it can be reused. Others are developing ways to separate mixed plastics by shredding them and automatically sorting the millimeter-sized fragments.

Such efforts are part of the “new plastics economy,” which recognizes that plastics can have environmental benefits as well as costs, “We don’t want to eliminate plastic, we want to eliminate plastic waste,” says Joe Iles, a spokesperson for the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which is leading the initiative. That will require coordination as well as innovation. For example, there’s a new generation of biodegradable plastic made from cornstarch that can be used to make drinking bottles. But we need an easy way to distinguish them from bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), says Iles, because even a few can contaminate and ruin a batch of recycled PET.

Another way to encourage recycling is to require manufacturers to take back and recycle the products they sell at the end of their useful life. This extended producer responsibility is increasingly being applied to products like electronics and batteries, It encourages manufacturers to think about the disposal of their products, possibly redesigning them to make that easier. Japan, one of the leaders in this approach, adds the price of recycling to new products and has seen an associated 27 percent increase in recycling rates for containers and packaging.

Initiatives like these are pushing society towards a “circular" economy, in contrast to today’s “take, make, and dispose” economy. We have a long way to go and, even with the most advanced technologies and best intentions, zero waste is an impossible dream. But that shouldn’t stop us dreaming. “I sometimes equate it to zero deaths in the emergency room of a hospital,” says Jeffrey Morris, a waste consultant at the Sound Resources Management Group in Olympia, Washington. “Any other goal makes no sense.”

EXERCISE 2.7 DRAFTING A THESIS STATEMENT

The following magazine article, “We Are So Forked” by Jenny Luna, focuses on the use of plastic utensils. What position does this essay take? Draft a thesis statement that summarizes this position. Then, consider how John Tierney (pp. 66—70) might respond to this thesis—and to Luna’s specific recommendations.

WE ARE SO FORKED

JENNY LUNA

This opinion piece appeared in the July/August 2017 issue of Mother Jones.

Whether for stabbing salads at our desks or slurping up late-night Thai, plastic cutlery has become a signature side to our growing takeout habit. It’s hard to say exactly how many forks, spoons, and knives Americans throw away, but in 2015 we placed nearly 2 billion delivery orders. If at least half those meals involved single-use utensils, that would mean we’re tossing out billions of utensils each year. They don’t just disappear: A recent study in the San Francisco Bay Area found that food and beverage packaging made up 67 percent of all litter on the streets.

Apart from being an eyesore, disposable cutlery endangers wildlife. A survey by four major environmental groups determined that plastic utensils ranked among the 10 most common trash items found in California—which contributes to a larger problem: The United Nations estimates that the oceans contain more than 8 million tons of plastic. As plastic breaks down, it can be mistaken for food by sea creatures, which can harm them and our seafood dinners.

A few options have surfaced in recent years. In 2010, a company in India started selling edible spoons and forks made from grains. Closer to home, California-based SpudWare’s forks are made from potato starch. But such alternatives, which cost about twice as much as plastic, still require a lot of energy and water to produce, according to Samantha Sommer, who runs a waste-prevention project for Clean Water Action. What’s more, not all major cities compost. And even if biodegradable or compostable utensils make it to a facility, there’s a chance they’ll end up in a landfill, says Robert Reed, a spokesman for the West Coast recycling and compost plant Recology. Depending on what they’re made of, he says, biodegradable utensils might not degrade completely; if they don’t, they could be plucked out of the pile and thrown away.

“Metal spoons have not yet graced American celebrity Instagram accounts, but may be it’s time.”

Perhaps diners should take a page from China, where environmental protesters publicized how the roughly 80 billion pairs of disposable wooden chopsticks produced each year eat up 20 million trees in the process. Greenpeace China launched a BYOC (Bring Your Own Chopsticks) campaign and worked with pop stars to promote reusable chopsticks as a trendy fashion accessory. As a result, disposable chopsticks were banned from use at many venues hosting events at Beijing’s 2008 Olympics.

Metal spoons have not yet graced American celebrity Instagram accounts, but maybe it’s time: Encouraging customers to bring in their own utensils helps businesses cut down costs and waste. A few years ago, Clean Water Action ran a test case with restaurant owner Francisco Hernandez of El Metate in San Francisco. The restaurant staff used to include plastic utensils with every order. Now, sit-down diners get metal forks, and disposables are in a countertop container for to-go customers who need them. Hernandez saved money that year—now he buys just one case of disposable forks each week instead of three—and he decreased his restaurant’s waste by more than 3,600 pounds. The change means El Metate has more to wash, but it’s likely that the water used to run his dishwasher (one gallon for every one-minute cycle) is dwarfed by the amount needed to make those plastic forks.

Still, a sea change might require more research and toothier legislation— something that worked in the fight against plastic bags. A 2013 study found that after San Jose, California, enacted a bag ban, there was nearly 90 percent less plastic in the city’s storm drains and almost 60 percent less in its streets than there had been before. Data like that helped California finalize a statewide ban—over the strenuous lobbying of plastics manufacturers—in 2016. Such legislation appears to be catching on: Chicago, Seattle, and Austin, Texas, have also enacted bag bans, and between 2015 and 2016, lawmakers proposed at least 77 state-level plastic bag bills. Given that success, here’s an idea: Charge a small fee for disposable utensils to help nudge consumers to make a habit out of carrying their own forks. Prettier streets, healthier oceans, and cheaper takeout? Sold.

Writing a Critical Response

Sometimes you will be asked to write a critical response—a paragraph or more in which you analyze ideas presented in an argument and express your reactions to them.

Before you can respond in writing to an argument, you need to be sure that you understand the writer’s position and that you have a sense of how supporting ideas are arranged—and why. You also need to consider how convincingly the writer conveys his or her position.

If you have read the argument carefully, highlighting and annotating it according to the guidelines outlined in this chapter, you should have a good idea what the writer wants to communicate to readers as well as how successfully the argument makes its point.

Before you begin to write a critical response to an argument, you should consider the questions in the checklist on page 83.

Begin your critical response by identifying your source and its author; then, write a clear, concise summary of the writer’s position. Next, analyze the argument’s supporting points one by one, considering the strength of the evidence that is presented. Also consider whether the writer addresses all significant opposing arguments and whether those arguments are refuted convincingly. Quote, summarize, and paraphrase the writer’s key points as you go along, being careful to quote accurately and not to misrepresent the writer’s ideas or distort them by quoting out of context. (For information on summarizing, paraphrasing, quoting, and synthesizing sources, see Chapter 9.) As you write, identify arguments you find unconvincing, poorly supported, or irrelevant. At the end of your critical response, sum up your assessment of the argument in a strong concluding statement.

CHECKLIST

Questions for Critical Reading

· What is the writer’s general subject?

· What purpose does the writer have for presenting this argument?

· What is the writer’s position?

· Does the writer support ideas mainly with facts or with opinion?

· What evidence does the writer present to support this position?

· Is the evidence convincing? Is there enough evidence?

· Does the writer present opposing ideas and refute them effectively?

· What kind of audience does the writer seem to be addressing?

· Does the writer see the audience as hostile, friendly, or neutral?

· Does the writer establish himself or herself as well informed? As a fair and reasonable person?

· Does the writer seem to exhibit bias? If so, how does this bias affect the argument?

RESPONSE TO “IT’S TIME TO PHASE OUT ALL SINGLE-USE PLASTIC”

NEENA THOMASON

Neena Thomason, the student who highlighted and annotated the Los Angeles Times editorial on pages 74—75, used those notes to help her develop the following critical response to the editorial.

Neena Thomason’s critical response to “It’s time to phase out all single-use plastic” with annotations in parentheses.

The response reads as follows:

First paragraph: In “It’s Time to Phase Out All Single-Use Plastic,” the Los Angeles Times editorial board warns of a bleak future unless the “unholy tonnage” (para. 1) of disposable plastic items is controlled. The board’s recommendation is a total ban of all single-use plastic items. (A corresponding margin note reads, Article’s source and author identified.)

Second paragraph: Although the editorial acknowledges steps that have been taken by state and local government to limit the use of various individual items, such as plastic bags and straws, the writers note that such efforts have not had much effect on the accumuLATion of trash. They are also not optimistic that the federal government will take significant steps to solve the problem. Therefore, they believe the time has come for the state of California to act. (A corresponding margin note reads, Summary of writer’s position.)

Third paragraph: One suggestion they make is the adoption of a “reduction goal” (7). The writers anticipate that industry will object to any such limitations, arguing that they will lead to a loss of jobs. They point out, however [Text continues in the next page] (A corresponding margin note reads, Analysis of supporting evidence.)

Continuation of Neena Thomason’s critical response to “It’s time to phase out all single-use plastic” with annotations in parentheses.

The essay continues as follows:

Continuation of third paragraph: that any lost jobs would be replaced by jobs producing “biodegradable alternatives” (9) to plastic items.

Fourth Paragraph: The editorial writers also expect industry to recommend recycling as a better alternative than banning single-use plastic items. The writers believe, however, that recycling is not the answer — and may, in fact, be part of the problem because it has “enabled our addiction to convenient, disposable plastic packaging” (11). (A corresponding margin note reads, Concluding statement.)

Fifth paragraph: In short, the writers of the editorial make a convincing case that the only way to avoid a world with “more plastic than fish in the ocean” (12) is to take action now.

Work Cited.

Los Angeles Times Editorial Board. “It’s Time to Phase Out All Single-Use Plastic.” Practical Argument, 4th ed., edited by Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell. Macmillan, 2020, pp. 00 to 00.

TEMPLATE FOR WRITING A CRITICAL RESPONSE

Write a one-paragraph critical response to John Tierney’s essay on pages 66—70. Use the following template to shape your paragraph.

According to John Tierney, recycling may not be worth the cost or effort required to achieve its goals. He points out, for example, that . Tierney also observes that . Tierney makes some convincing points. For example, he says that . However, . All in all, .

EXERCISE 2.8 WRITING A CRITICAL RESPONSE

Expand the one-paragraph critical response that you wrote above into a more fully developed critical response to John Tierney’s essay on pages 66—70. Refer to the highlighting and annotations that you did for Exercises 2.3 and 2.4. (If you like, you can include references to other readings in this chapter.)

EXERCISE 2.9 DEVELOPING VISUAL ARGUMENTS

What kind of images would you use to support the argument that recycling is necessary? What kinds of images might support the argument that recycling isn’t worth the trouble? Develop two lists of possible visuals, one list for each side of the argument. Then, consider what these images might include and where they might appear.