Question

"Canada Wants to Ban Single-Use Plastics"
by Vicky Stein

From Vancouver to Halifax, plastic plates, plastic bags and plastic straws may be on their way out. But a possible country-wide prohibition on certain single-use plastic products may not address the spread of the most insidious plastic litter, some scientists say.

According to Canadian officials, the potential bans — which could go into effect as early as 2021 — would not only curb litter but also cut nearly 2 million tons of carbon pollution. They claim the policy would also stimulate the economy by creating 42,000 jobs.

“I am, like a lot of scientists, excited, with a lot of caveats,” said Max Liboiron, an environmental scientist at Memorial University in Newfoundland.

Plastics can persist for hundreds, if not thousands of years in the environment. Plastic litter can entangle and kill wildlife, or break down into tiny particles — microplastics — that collect and leach out heavy metals or harmful chemicals. While recycling can repurpose plastic materials into other products, fewer than 10 percent of plastics are actually recycled. The bulk of recyclable plastic is currently in limbo, as countries in Asia have shut their doors to shipments of other nations’ trash.

Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is pursuing a ban of plastic products under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which was used to restrict microbeads in 2018.

Liboiron’s hesitance comes from her five years of surveying the plastic waste that washes up on the shores of Newfoundland. The major plastic problems she sees in her research aren’t addressed so far in the Canadian government’s plan.

“They say [the bans are] going to be science-based, which is great,” Liboiron said. “But my question is, ‘what science?’”

Use the article to answer the question.

In 3–5 sentences, explain how the writer uses valid reasoning to develop an overall argument.

(4 points)
6 grader

Answer 1

The writer gives both facts and expert opinion to support the main idea that Canada’s planned ban could help but might not fix all plastic problems. She cites government claims (less carbon pollution and more jobs) and facts about plastics (they last a long time, make microplastics, and are rarely recycled) to show why a ban could matter. Then she includes a scientist’s cautious quote to point out a possible weakness in the plan — that it may not tackle the worst kinds of plastic pollution. By mixing evidence, numbers, and an expert voice, the writer uses logical, balanced reasoning to develop the argument.