Item one read the two sources on which fact do the two sources disagree

Question

Source one requires school districts to recycle or reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases that damage the environment. School districts have many people in them and dispose large amounts of waste. Their participation is necessary. Recycling is going to have an impact on the environment.
Source to outside recycling programs be expensive for schools that need to use their districts for educational programs and resources while recycling is important to protect our planet getting all students to fall as specific program is not easy and cause programs to be in effective
•There are too many people in the school district
• There is a need to protect the environment with recycling
• successful recycling programs require the participation of many people
• Recycling programs in school damage the environment

Answer 1

The two sources disagree on the effectiveness and feasibility of recycling programs in schools.

• Source one emphasizes the necessity of school districts participating in recycling to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and asserts that their involvement will positively impact the environment.

• Source two, however, points out the challenges and costs associated with implementing recycling programs in schools. It suggests that while recycling is important, these programs can be ineffective or difficult to manage due to the large number of people involved and the strain on educational resources.

Therefore, the main point of disagreement is whether school recycling programs can be both effective and feasible within the context of educational priorities and resource limitations.

Answer 2

Choose one of the four answers

Answer 3

The two sources disagree on the following fact:

Successful recycling programs require the participation of many people.

Source one supports the idea that participation is necessary for environmental impact, whereas source two implies that involving many people makes recycling programs challenging and potentially ineffective.