The writer uses valid reasoning to support the argument for banning single-use plastics by presenting both potential benefits and existing concerns. The article states that the proposed bans could significantly reduce plastic litter and associated carbon pollution, while also creating a considerable number of jobs. However, the inclusion of Max Liboiron's cautionary perspective highlights that while the initiative is promising, it may not fully address the broader issue of plastic waste, especially concerning microplastics. This balanced approach presents a comprehensive view of the topic, acknowledging both optimism and the potential shortcomings of the proposed measures.
"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.
1 of 6
Question
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)
Short Answer Rubric (4 points)
Points Awarded Criteria
4
The answer is very clear.
The answer is fully supported by details.
There may be a few errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics. Errors do not interfere with meaning.
3
The answer is mostly clear.
The answer is supported by mostly relevant details.
There are a few errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics. Errors do not interfere with meaning.
2
The answer is somewhat clear.
Details are weak or not related.
There are some errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics. Errors interfere with meaning.
1
The answer is not clear.
There are few or no supporting details.
There are many errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics. Errors interfere with meaning.
0 The question is not answered.
1 answer