The two sources do not explicitly disagree on any of these statements; both implicitly acknowledge the need for environmental protection and the potential challenges of implementing recycling programs. However, we have to infer from the context to identify a point of contention.
Source 1 emphasizes the importance and necessity of recycling programs in schools for the sake of the environment and implies that such programs can be successful and impactful.
Source 2 acknowledges the importance of recycling but raises concerns about the cost and potential difficulties in ensuring that all students adhere to the programs, which could lead to inefficacy.
Based on these points, the closest answer that would represent a disagreement would be:
There are too many people in a school district to follow one plan.
This is because Source 2 suggests difficulties with getting all students to follow a program, hinting at concerns related to the number of participants (which is indirectly connected to the statement), whereas Source 1 does not see the number of people as a deterring factor but rather a necessity for impact. However, note that the phrasing of this statement is not a direct claim made by either source; instead, it requires inference from reading both sources. The disagreement is more about the feasibility and challenges of implementing such programs rather than the number of people in the district.
Use the information from the two sources to answer the question.
Source 1: Requiring school districts to recycle will reduce the emissions of greenhouses gases that damage the environment. School districts have many people in them and dispose of large amounts of waste. Their participation is necessary if recycling is going to have an impact on the environment.
Source 2: Outside recycling programs can be expensive for schools that need to use their district's money for educational programs and resources. While recycling is important for protecting our planet, getting all students to follow a specific program is not easy and can cause programs to be ineffective.
On which fact do the two sources disagree?
(1 point)
Responses
Successful recycling programs require the participation of many people.
Successful recycling programs require the participation of many people.
Recycling programs in schools damage the environment.
Recycling programs in schools damage the environment.
There are too many people in a school district to follow one plan.
There are too many people in a school district to follow one plan.
There is a need to protect the environment with recycling.
3 answers
Choose a answer
Based on the information provided and looking for the closest point of disagreement between the two sources, the most suitable answer would be:
There is a need to protect the environment with recycling.
Explanation:
- Source 1 unequivocally supports the need to protect the environment with recycling, arguing that it is necessary for school districts to participate in recycling programs to reduce greenhouse gases.
- Source 2, while not denying the importance of recycling for environmental protection, emphasizes the financial burden and challenges of implementing recycling programs in schools, which might imply that they believe the need for using funds for education might outweigh the need for recycling programs.
This seems to be the underlying disagreement where Source 1 prioritizes environmental protection through recycling in schools, and Source 2 raises concerns about practicality and competing financial priorities.
There is a need to protect the environment with recycling.
Explanation:
- Source 1 unequivocally supports the need to protect the environment with recycling, arguing that it is necessary for school districts to participate in recycling programs to reduce greenhouse gases.
- Source 2, while not denying the importance of recycling for environmental protection, emphasizes the financial burden and challenges of implementing recycling programs in schools, which might imply that they believe the need for using funds for education might outweigh the need for recycling programs.
This seems to be the underlying disagreement where Source 1 prioritizes environmental protection through recycling in schools, and Source 2 raises concerns about practicality and competing financial priorities.