"Edible Cutlery for Way Out of Plastic Pollution"

Question

"Canada Wants to Ban Single-Use Plastics"

Use the passages to answer the question. Select Passage 1 and Passage 2.

How do the claims made in the two texts compare?

(1 point)
Responses

The claims are different, and the claim in Text 1 is more valid and effective because it includes stronger evidence and reasoning than Text 1.
The claims are different, and the claim in Text 1 is more valid and effective because it includes stronger evidence and reasoning than Text 1.

The claims are different, and the claim in Text 2 is more valid and effective because it includes broader evidence and information than Text 1.
The claims are different, and the claim in Text 2 is more valid and effective because it includes broader evidence and information than Text 1.

The claims are different, but they are both valid and effective because they are both supported with persuasive evidence and reasoning.
The claims are different, but they are both valid and effective because they are both supported with persuasive evidence and reasoning.

The claims are the same, and they are both valid and effective because they are supported by the same type of evidence and reasoning.

Answer 1

The comparisons you provided seem to suggest a distinction between the perspectives offered in the two passages. Based on the titles alone:

1. Passage 1 ("Edible Cutlery for Way Out of Plastic Pollution") likely presents a solution to addressing plastic pollution through innovative alternatives like edible cutlery, focusing on the concept of reducing reliance on single-use plastics.

2. Passage 2 ("Canada Wants to Ban Single-Use Plastics") appears to assert a legislative approach to combating plastic pollution by emphasizing governmental action to prohibit single-use plastics.

Given these contexts, the claims are indeed different. Passage 1 promotes an innovative alternative, while Passage 2 advocates for a legal ban. Therefore, one of the options that aligns with this analysis is:

The claims are different, but they are both valid and effective because they are both supported with persuasive evidence and reasoning.

This suggests both texts provide legitimate solutions, albeit through different approaches to tackle the issue of plastic pollution.