LEARNING ABOUT AN ISSUE (RECYCLING)
CONSIDERING SOURCE CREDIBILITY
SELECTING RELEVANT EVIDENCE
MAKING AND SUPPORTING A CLAIM
DRAFTING AND REVISING
STRATEGIES FOR ARGUMENT WRITING
Jean Wolph
March 2015
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
In this mini-unit, we’ll
look at the credibility of
our sources.
•
We’ll try to highlight what is credible
about sources that support our
claims.
We’ll try to “throw some shade”—to
show why readers should not see the
information as reliable—on sources
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
that do not support our claims.
•
We’ll practice some
ways that writers use
sources to develop their
arguments:
Illustrating | Use specific examples from the text to support the
claim
Authorizing | Refer to an “expert” to support the claim
Countering | “Push back” against the text in some way (e.g.,
disagree with it, challenge something it says, or interpret it
differently)
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
LEARNING ABOUT AN ISSUE
First, we’ll read articles (and excerpts) to help us
understand the issues about RECYCLING. Why do
some people support it? Why do others oppose it?
Positives and Negatives of Recycling
What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?
Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!
Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA
Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
CONSIDERING SOURCE CREDIBILITY
Which are informational?
Which are opinion?
Positives and Negatives of Recycling
What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?
Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!
Communicating the Benefits of Recycling
Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Which are informational?
Which are opinion?
Positives and Negatives of Recycling: an informational article
What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?: a press
release from a waste management company (press releases tend to
give one side—the side of the organization that sends out the
release. They may be factual or they may not.)
Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!: an argument by a college teacher
Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(informational)
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Look at your packet.
Which of these seem
more credible?
Less credible?
Why?
Positives and Negatives of Recycling
What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?
Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!
Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational
article by the EPA
Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Which of these seem
credible? Less credible?
Why?
Positives and Negatives of Recycling: an
informational article
What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space
and Fees?: a press release from a waste
management company
Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!: an opinion
piece by a college teacher
Communicating the Benefits of Recycling:
informational article by the EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency)
Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia
Seems credible because it’s balanced, but
who or what is BUZZLE?
Seems less credible because it’s by the
company and about the company; does
agree with some other sources
Might seem credible because it’s by a
college professor, but it’s quite out of date
Seems credible because it’s a
governmental agency; it is charged with
protecting our environment
May seem less credible because of its
reputation, but science topics on Wikipedia
are well vetted; does agree with some
other sources
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
LEARNING ABOUT AN ISSUE
We’ll read the informational
articles first.
Positives and Negatives of Recycling: an informational
article
Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational
article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia (informational)
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
As we read, we’ll record key words
for reasons that are given to support
recycling (+) and reasons that are
used to oppose it (-).
Reasons to Support
Recyling (+ or PRO)
Reasons to Oppose
Recyling (- or CON)
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Positive and Negative Effects of Recycling
Adapted from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/positive-and-negativeeffects-of-recycling.html (8.2)
Recycling involves remanufacturing used material into useful products.
Recycling is the process of reclaiming waste
materials for reuse. This helps conserve energy. It
also saves natural resources. Plastic bottles, glass,
and newspapers can be recycled to make useful
items.
Here are some pros and cons of recycling.
Positive Effects of Recycling
+
Preserves the Environment
Recycling protects the environment. As the demand for paper
increases, more trees are being cut. About 20% of all logs
collected from our forests are used to make new paper. About
28,000 liters of water, 4000 kilowatt hours of electricity and 2
barrels of oil are used to make one ton of new paper. About
2200 pounds of solid waste is generated in making paper.
By recycling paper, we save resources and create less waste.
Air pollution drops by 74% when paper is made from recycled
material instead of with new wood pulp. Recycling can prevent
the destruction of forests. Recycling a ton of mixed paper or
newspaper saves 12 trees. We need trees. They help keep the
air we breathe clean.
Let’s add to our chart.
Reasons to Support
Recyling (+ or PRO)
Reasons to Oppose
Recyling (- or CON)
Protects the Environment
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Positive Effects of Recycling
+
Preserves the Environment
Recycling protects the environment. As the demand for paper
increases, more trees are being cut. About 20% of all logs
collected from our forests are used to make new paper. About
28,000 liters of water, 4000 kilowatt hours of electricity and
2 barrels of oil are used to make one ton of new paper. About
2200 pounds of solid waste is generated in making paper.
By recycling paper, we save resources and create less waste.
Air pollution drops by 74% when paper is made from
recycled material instead of with new wood pulp. Recycling can
prevent the destruction of forests. Recycling a ton of mixed
paper or newspaper saves 12 trees. We need trees. They
help keep the air we breathe clean.
Partner Work: Use the article
headings to finish the chart.
Reasons to Support
Recyling (+ or PRO)
Reasons to Oppose
Recyling (- or CON)
Protects the
Environment
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Group Work: In groups of 4, discuss and then highlight the
important facts evidence in each section that could convince
others to recycle or to stop recycling. What is COMPELLING?
Don’t choose things you don’t understand. Put a + or – to
show whether the fact will support the PRO or CON side.
+
+
Saves Energy
Recycling aluminum and glass reduces our energy use. The energy to recycle aluminum cans is
95% less than the energy needed to make a new can. Recycling an aluminum can saves enough
energy to power a TV set for 3 hours. The amount of energy saved by recycling a glass bottle will
run a computer for 25 minutes.
Reduces Pollution
Plastic waste causes soil and water pollution. Plastic recycling is an effective solution to this
problem. In recycling, the plastic waste is recovered and reused.
Recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions. This reduces global warming. Recycling 35,116
tons of material is the same as taking 22,140 cars off the road. Recycling a ton of aluminum
eliminates 12 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
+
Lowers Carbon Footprint
Processing raw materials uses a lot of energy. Energy is used to extract and transport raw
materials. Transportation uses fuels like diesel and gasoline. These fuels are the main source of
green gas emissions. Recycling means less fuel is used. When less fuel is used, less carbon
dioxide is released into the environment.
Partner Work: Finish the article. Highlight reasons.
Mark reasons for with “+” and reasons against with “-”
+
Saves Energy
Recycling aluminum and glass reduces our energy use. The energy to recycle aluminum
cans is 95% less than the energy needed to make a new can. Recycling an aluminum can
saves enough energy to power a TV set for 3 hours. The amount of energy saved by
recycling a glass bottle will run a computer for 25 minutes.
+
Reduces Pollution
Plastic waste causes soil and water pollution. Plastic recycling is an effective solution to
this problem. In recycling, the plastic waste is recovered and reused.
Recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions. This reduces global warming. Recycling
35,116 tons of material is the same as taking 22,140 cars off the road. Recycling a ton of
aluminum eliminates 12 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
+
Lowers Carbon Footprint
Processing raw materials uses a lot of energy. Energy is used to extract and transport raw
materials. Transportation uses fuels like diesel and gasoline. These fuels are the main
source of green gas emissions. Recycling means less fuel is used. When less fuel is
used, less carbon dioxide is released into the environment.
Conserves Natural Resources
Recycling saves our natural resources. Recycling a ton of steel
saves about 2500 tons of iron ore. Making plastic uses up fossil
fuels. About 17 million barrels of crude oil is used every year to
make plastic in United States. By recycling plastics, several tons of
fossil fuel are saved.
Reduces Landfill Use
The need for landfills will go down if recycling is increased.
Landfills, where we dump our trash, are overflowing in many
countries. People living near landfills can have health problems
because of the pollution.
Adds Jobs
About 1.5 million new jobs will be created if we recycle 75% of our
garbage. Now the U.S. recycles only 34% of its garbage.
Conserves Natural Resources
Recycling saves our natural resources. Recycling a ton of steel
saves about 2500 tons of iron ore. Making plastic uses up fossil
fuels. About 17 million barrels of crude oil is used every year to
make plastic in United States. By recycling plastics, several tons of
fossil fuel are saved.
Reduces Landfill Use
The need for landfills will go down if recycling is increased.
Landfills, where we dump our trash, are overflowing in many
countries. People living near landfills can have health problems
because of the pollution.
Adds Jobs
About 1.5 million new jobs will be created if we recycle 75% of our
garbage. Now the U.S. recycles only 34% of its garbage.
Negative Effects of Recycling
Are there harmful effects of recycling?
Water and Soil Pollution
If recycling sites are not managed well, harmful chemicals in the trash can mix into
water and soil. This can hurt plants and fish in the streams and lakes. When
chemicals mix with rainwater, a poisonous mixture called leachate is formed.
Leachate can be very dangerous if it reaches our water supplies.
Cost
Paper recycling can be expensive. Bleaching is required to make the paper
reusable. Recycled paper is not always good quality. Plastic is difficult to recycle
because there are so many different kinds of plastic. They have to be sorted
carefully. You can’t combine different kinds of plastic.
Health
In bleaching recycled paper, harsh chemicals are used that can cause health
problems to workers.
Negative Effects of Recycling
Are there harmful effects of recycling?
Water and Soil Pollution
If recycling sites are not managed well, harmful chemicals in the trash can mix into
water and soil. This can hurt plants and fish in the streams and lakes. When
chemicals mix with rainwater, a poisonous mixture called leachate is formed.
Leachate can be very dangerous if it reaches our water supplies.
Cost
Paper recycling can be expensive. Bleaching is required to make the paper
reusable. Recycled paper is not always good quality. Plastic is difficult to recycle
because there are so many different kinds of plastic. They have to be sorted
carefully. You can’t combine different kinds of plastic.
Health
In bleaching recycled paper, harsh chemicals are used that can cause health
problems to workers.
MAKING AND SUPPORTING A CLAIM:
Where do you stand on recycling?
Claim template: [Who] should [do what] because [why].
Examples:
• Families should recycle their trash because it will
improve the environment.
• Our town should not recycle because of the cost and
the dangers involved.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
PQP
Praise, Question,
Polish
[Who] should [do what] because [why].
• Does your claim have all 3 parts?
• Is there evidence to support your
claim? (think about the article you just read)
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
SELECTING RELEVANT EVIDENCE
With your claim in mind, read the
next two articles to look for (1) NEW
reasons, pro or con, and (2)
compelling facts.
Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational
article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
BENEFITS OF RECYCLING
Adapted from an article by the Environmental Protection Agency
Retrieved 3-3-15 from http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/solidwastebenefits.htm 7.9
"Recycling" means reusing. To recycle, we
separate,
collect,
process,
market, and
use
a material that would have been thrown away. Today’s newspaper can be turned into another paper
product. Cans and bottles can be melted and made into other products.
Quality products and packaging are being made from recovered materials. We can all help create markets
for recyclables by buying and using these products.
Why Should We Recycle?
Recycling reduces our use of landfills and incinerators.
Recycling protects our health and environment. Recycling removes harmful substances from the
environment.
Recycling conserves our natural resources. It reduces the need for raw materials.
What Can We Recycle?
Commonly recycled materials include:
Paper (newspaper, office paper, cardboard, etc.)
Yard trimmings (grass, leaves, and shrub and tree clippings are composted).
Glass (clear, green, and amber bottles and jars).
Aluminum (beverage containers).
Other metals (steel cans, auto bodies, refrigerators, stoves, and batteries).
Used motor oil.
Plastics (soda bottles, milk jugs, bags, and detergent containers).
BENEFITS OF RECYCLING
Adapted from an article by the Environmental Protection Agency
Retrieved 3-3-15 from http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/solidwastebenefits.htm 7.9
"Recycling" means reusing. To recycle, we
separate,
collect,
process,
market, and
use
a material that would have been thrown away. Today’s newspaper can be turned into another paper
product. Cans and bottles can be melted and made into other products.
Quality products and packaging are being made from recovered materials. We can all help create markets
for recyclables by buying and using these products.
Why Should We Recycle?
Recycling reduces our use of landfills and incinerators.
Recycling protects our health and environment. Recycling removes harmful substances from the
environment.
Recycling conserves our natural resources. It reduces the need for raw materials. (Raw materials are
natural resources.)
What Can We Recycle?
Commonly recycled materials include:
Paper (newspaper, office paper, cardboard, etc.)
Yard trimmings (grass, leaves, and shrub and tree clippings are composted).
Glass (clear, green, and amber bottles and jars).
Aluminum (beverage containers).
Other metals (steel cans, auto bodies, refrigerators, stoves, and batteries).
Used motor oil.
Plastics (soda bottles, milk jugs, bags, and detergent containers).
Add to your chart.
Reasons to Support
Recyling (+ or PRO)
Reasons to Oppose
Recyling (- or CON)
Reduces air
pollution (from
incinerators)
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
BENEFITS OF RECYCLING
Adapted from an article by the Environmental Protection Agency
Retrieved 3-3-15 from http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/solidwastebenefits.htm 7.9
"Recycling" means reusing. To recycle, we
separate,
collect,
process,
market, and
use
a material that would have been thrown away. Today’s newspaper can be turned into another paper
product. Cans and bottles can be melted and made into other products.
Quality products and packaging are being made from recovered materials. We can all help create markets
for recyclables by buying and using these products.
Why Should We Recycle?
Recycling reduces our use of landfills and incinerators.
Recycling protects our health and environment. Recycling removes harmful substances from the
environment.
Recycling conserves our natural resources. It reduces the need for raw materials. (Raw materials are
natural resources.)
What Can We Recycle?
Commonly recycled materials include:
Paper (newspaper, office paper, cardboard, etc.)
Yard trimmings (grass, leaves, and shrub and tree clippings are composted).
Glass (clear, green, and amber bottles and jars).
Aluminum (beverage containers).
Other metals (steel cans, auto bodies, refrigerators, stoves, and batteries).
Used motor oil.
Plastics (soda bottles, milk jugs, bags, and detergent containers).
ON YOUR OWN!
With your claim in mind, read the next article to look for
(1) NEW reasons, pro or con, to add to the chart, and (2)
NEW compelling facts.
Recycling: Cost–benefit analysis
Retrieved from Wikipedia, 3-3-15; adapted for classroom use 11.0
There is debate over whether recycling makes financial sense.
It is said that dumping 10,000 tons of waste in a landfill creates six jobs. Recycling 10,000
tons of waste, however, can create over 36 jobs.
.
The U.S. Recycling Economic Informational Study says 50,000 U.S. recycling plants have
created over a million jobs.
Although New York leaders first thought recycling would be "a drain on the city," they later realized
that recycling could save the city over $20 million.
Such savings are often due to the reduced landfill costs. A study by the Technical University of
Denmark found recycling is the most efficient method to dispose of household waste, 83% of the
time. One exception is drink containers. Incineration is more cost effective, says a 2004 assessment
by the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute.
Recycling: Cost–benefit analysis
Retrieved from Wikipedia, 3-3-15; adapted for classroom use 11.0
There is debate over whether recycling makes financial sense.
It is said that dumping 10,000 tons of waste in a landfill creates six jobs. Recycling 10,000
tons of waste, however, can create over 36 jobs.
.
The U.S. Recycling Economic Informational Study says 50,000 U.S. recycling plants have
created over a million jobs.
Although New York leaders first thought recycling would be "a drain on the city," they later realized
that recycling could save the city over $20 million.
Such savings are often due to the reduced landfill costs. A study by the Technical University of
Denmark found recycling is the most efficient method to dispose of household waste, 83% of the
time. One exception is drink containers. Incineration is more cost effective, says a 2004 assessment
by the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute.
Some benefits that are hard to put price tags on. Incineration causes air pollution. Recycling lowers
pollution and reduces greenhouse gases. Landfills cause leaching of chemicals into the ground and
water supply. Recycling reduces that problem. Recycling reduces energy use. It reduces waste. It
reduces our use of resources, which in turn reduces mining and timber cutting that damage the
environment.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) favors recycling. The EPA says recycling cut carbon
emissions by 49 million metric tonnes in 2005.
Is this what you added to your
chart?
Reasons to Support
Recyling (+ or PRO)
Reasons to Oppose
Recyling (- or CON)
Efficiency
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Recycling: Cost–benefit analysis
Retrieved from Wikipedia, 3-3-15; adapted for classroom use 11.0
There is debate over whether recycling makes financial sense.
It is said that dumping 10,000 tons of waste in a landfill creates six jobs. Recycling 10,000 tons of
waste, however, can create over 36 jobs.
.
The U.S. Recycling Economic Informational Study says 50,000 U.S. recycling plants have created over
a million jobs.
Although New York leaders first thought recycling would be "a drain on the city," they later realized that recycling
could save the city over $20 million.
Such savings are often due to the reduced landfill costs. A study by the Technical University of Denmark found
recycling is the most efficient method to dispose of household waste, 83% of the time. One exception is drink
containers. Incineration is more cost effective, says a 2004 assessment by the Danish Environmental Assessment
Institute.
Some benefits that are hard to put price tags on. Incineration causes air pollution. Recycling lowers pollution and
reduces greenhouse gases. Landfills cause leaching of chemicals into the ground and water supply. Recycling
reduces that problem. Recycling reduces energy use. It reduces waste. It reduces our use of resources, which in
turn reduces mining and timber cutting that damage the environment.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) favors recycling. The EPA says recycling cut carbon emissions by 49
million metric tonnes in 2005.
Recycling is more efficient in densely populated areas.
LEARNING ABOUT AN ISSUE
Now let’s read the opinion pieces.
What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space
and Fees?: a press release from a waste
management company
Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!: an opinion piece
by a college teacher
Underline key words and phrases that show
their points of view and supporting evidence.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space?
Adapted from an article by Barbara Hudson, Chartwell Information Services (8.8)
James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell Information, Inc. Chartwell was
one of the first U.S. companies to publish data about waste disposal needs.
In the 1980s, many groups said we were running out of places to put our trash.
The scare led companies to build more landfills, however. In Thompson's opinion,
there was never a shortage.
In 1991, Chartwell discovered the U.S. had enough working landfills for over 18
years. Thompson says this is more than enough to handle our needs.
According to Chartwell, the U.S. has landfill capacity for the next 18 years, even if no new facilities are built.
What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space?
Adapted from an article by Barbara Hudson, Chartwell Information Services (8.8)
James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell Information, Inc. Chartwell was
one of the first U.S. companies to publish data about waste disposal needs.
In the 1980s, many groups said we were running out of places to put our trash.
The scare led companies to build more landfills, however. In Thompson's opinion,
there was never a shortage.
In 1991, Chartwell discovered the U.S. had enough working landfills for over 18
years. Thompson says this is more than enough to handle our needs.
According to Chartwell, the U.S. has landfill capacity for the next 18 years, even if no new facilities are built.
Add to your chart
Reasons to Support
Recyling (+ or PRO)
Reasons to Oppose
Recyling (- or CON)
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Is this what you added to your
chart?
Reasons to Support
Recyling (+ or PRO)
Reasons to Oppose
Recyling (- or CON)
Plenty of landfill
space
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Underline key words and phrases that show
the author’s point of view.
The Mises Institute monthly
December 1995
Volume 13, Number 12
Retrieved 7-25-14 at http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=212 (6.2)
Don't Recycle: Throw It Away!
adapted from an opinion piece by Roy E. Cordato
Many people think recycling is the right thing to do. Why? Their kids learn
wrong facts in school. They use this misinformation to guilt their parents
into recycling. One poll shows 63% of kids have told Mom or Dad to
recycle.
Parents, don’t feel bad! Throw that trash away. Don’t recycle trash you can’t
get paid for. What kids are learning is based on liberal politics, not fact or
science.
The Mises Institute monthly
December 1995
Volume 13, Number 12
Retrieved 7-25-14 at http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=212 (6.2)
Don't Recycle: Throw It Away!
adapted from an opinion piece by Roy E. Cordato
Many people think recycling is the right thing to do. Why?
Their kids learn wrong facts in school. They use this
misinformation to guilt their parents into recycling. One poll
shows 63% of kids have told Mom or Dad to recycle.
Parents, don’t feel bad! Throw that trash away. Don’t recycle
trash you can’t get paid for. What kids are learning is based
on liberal politics, not fact or science.
One argument for recycling is that we are running out of landfill space. A "public
service" ad on Nickelodeon shows a city being buried in its own trash. This is
typical of what passes for environmental education. Just as hysterical is American
Education Publishing's 50 Simple Things Kids Can Do To Save the Earth.
In fact, there is no landfill shortage. All the solid waste for the next thousand
years would take up only 44 miles of landfill. This is just .01% of the U.S.
landspace.
How about the claim that recycling paper saves trees? Why not make new paper
from old paper and save more trees from being cut down?
Because it doesn't work. Supply meets demand. If we suddenly stopped making
bread from wheat, there would soon be less wheat in the world. Farmers would
stop growing it. If everyone stopped eating chicken, the chicken population would
not grow but fall.
The same logic applies to paper and trees. If we stopped using paper, there would
be fewer trees planted. About 87% of new trees are planted just to produce paper.
For every 13 trees "saved" by recycling, 87 will never get planted. It is the demand
for paper in the U.S. that caused the number of trees to increase for the last 50
years. So if you want to increase the number of trees, don't recycle.
One argument for recycling is that we are running out of landfill space. A "public
service" ad on Nickelodeon shows a city being buried in its own trash. This is
typical of what passes for environmental education. Just as hysterical is American
Education Publishing's 50 Simple Things Kids Can Do To Save the Earth.
In fact, there is no landfill shortage. All the solid waste for the next thousand
years would take up only 44 miles of landfill. This is just .01% of the U.S.
landspace.
How about the claim that recycling paper saves trees? Why not make new paper
from old paper and save more trees from being cut down?
Because it doesn't work. Supply meets demand. If we suddenly stopped making
bread from wheat, there would soon be less wheat in the world. Farmers would
stop growing it. If everyone stopped eating chicken, the chicken population would
not grow but fall.
The same logic applies to paper and trees. If we stopped using paper, there would
be fewer trees planted. About 87% of new trees are planted just to produce paper.
For every 13 trees "saved" by recycling, 87 will never get planted. It is the demand
for paper in the U.S. that caused the number of trees to increase for the last 50
years. So if you want to increase the number of trees, don't recycle.
Others claims made by recycling advocates are just as bad. Recycling doesn't save
resources. In general, recycling is more expensive than landfilling. The exception is
aluminum. As former EPA official J. Winston Porter admitted, "trash management is
becoming much more costly due to...the generally high cost of recycling.“
Children are also told that recycling will reduce pollution. They are not told that the recycling
process itself causes a lot of pollution. Recycling newspapers requires old ink to be bleached
from the pages. This process generates toxic waste, as opposed to the harmless waste from
just throwing the papers away.
Also, curbside recycling programs require more trash pickups. This means more trucks on the
road. These trucks generate more air pollution. Due to mandatory recycling, New York City
had to add two more pickups per week. Los Angeles had to double the number of trash
trucks.
The recyclers want more than just recycling. In Waste Management: Towards a Sustainable
Society, O.P. Kharband and E.A. Stallworthy even complain that builders throw away bent
nails and that hospitals use disposable syringes. "The so-called 'standard of living,'" they
conclude "has to be reduced."
Here is the real goal of the recycling gurus. They want to lower our standard of living.
Unfortunately, it’s happening already in the many cities that bought expensive recycling
plants. It’s lead to great waste, high taxes, and cash-strapped local governments.
Recyclers are not better citizens. They are just ill-informed. This holiday season, unwrap
those presents, stuff the paper in a big plastic bag, and throw it all away.
Others claims made by recycling advocates are just as bad. Recycling doesn't save
resources. In general, recycling is more expensive than landfilling. The exception is
aluminum. As former EPA official J. Winston Porter admitted, "trash management is
becoming much more costly due to...the generally high cost of recycling.“
Children are also told that recycling will reduce pollution. They are not told that the recycling
process itself causes a lot of pollution. Recycling newspapers requires old ink to be bleached
from the pages. This process generates toxic waste, as opposed to the harmless waste from
just throwing the papers away.
Also, curbside recycling programs require more trash pickups. This means more trucks on the
road. These trucks generate more air pollution. Due to mandatory recycling, New York City
had to add two more pickups per week. Los Angeles had to double the number of trash
trucks.
The recyclers want more than just recycling. In Waste Management: Towards a Sustainable
Society, O.P. Kharband and E.A. Stallworthy even complain that builders throw away bent
nails and that hospitals use disposable syringes. "The so-called 'standard of living,'" they
conclude "has to be reduced."
Here is the real goal of the recycling gurus. They want to lower our standard of living.
Unfortunately, it’s happening already in the many cities that bought expensive recycling
plants. It’s lead to great waste, high taxes, and cash-strapped local governments.
Recyclers are not better citizens. They are just ill-informed. This holiday season, unwrap
those presents, stuff the paper in a big plastic bag, and throw it all away.
Add to your chart
Reasons to Support
Recyling (+ or PRO)
Reasons to Oppose
Recyling (- or CON)
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Is this what you added to your
chart?
Reasons to Support
Recyling (+ or PRO)
Reasons to Oppose
Recyling (- or CON)
Recyling is about
politics, not about
environmental needs.
Supply meets
demand.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
What reasons did we find
that support recycling?
Not recycling?
Research Overview
Reasons to Recycle
Reasons NOT to Recycle
Saves Energy
Plenty of Landfill Space
Saves Natural Resources (forests)
Can Cause Pollution (leachate)
Creates Less Waste
Chemicals Cause Health Problems
Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil) Can Be Expensive
Reduces Carbon Footprint
More Political Than Environmental
Reduces Landfill Use
Supply Meets Demand
Creates Jobs
Efficiency
SELECTING RELEVANT EVIDENCE
Which reasons will be most convincing
or most relevant to your claim?
Research Overview
Reasons to Recycle
Reasons NOT to Recycle
Saves Energy
Plenty of Landfill Space
Saves Natural Resources (forests)
Can Cause Pollution (leachate)
Creates Less Waste
Chemicals Cause Health Problems
Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil)
Can Be Expensive
Reduces Carbon Footprint
More Political Than Environmental
Reduces Landfill Use
Supply Meets Demand
Creates Jobs
Efficiency
PRO Claim: Our families should
recycle to save the environment.
Reasons to Support Recycling
Reasons to Recycle
Is this reason relevant to families?
Saves Energy
Saves Natural Resources
(forests)
Creates Less Waste
Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil)
Reduces Carbon Footprint
Reduces Landfill Use
Creates Jobs
Efficiency
Which reasons
will be most
convincing or
most relevant to
our claim?
EXPLAIN WHY.
PRO Claim: Our families should
recycle to save the environment.
Reasons to Support Recycling
Reasons to Recycle
Is this reason relevant to families?
Saves Energy
Yes, because this leads to a better quality of life.
Saves Natural Resources
(forests)
Yes, because families care about the future for their
children and grandchildren.
Creates Less Waste
Maybe not directly.
Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil) Yes, because this leads to a better quality of life.
Reduces Carbon Footprint
Yes, because families care about the future for their
children and grandchildren.
Reduces Landfill Use
Maybe not directly.
Creates Jobs
Maybe not, as most families probably won’t become
part of the recycling industry.
Efficiency
Maybe not directly. This is about efficiency in
manufacturing, not efficiency at home.
CON Claim: Our town
should not recycle because
of the cost and the dangers
involved.
Reasons NOT to Support Recycling
Reasons NOT to Recycle
Is this reason relevant to our
town’s decision about
recycling?
Plenty of Landfill Space
Can Cause Pollution (leachate)
Chemicals Cause Health Problems
Can Be Expensive
More Political Than Environmental
Supply Meets Demand
Which reasons
will be most
convincing or
most relevant to
our claim?
EXPLAIN WHY.
CON: Which reasons will be most
convincing or most relevant to your
claim?
Reasons NOT to Support Recycling
Reasons NOT to Recycle
Is this reason relevant to our
town’s decision about recycling?
Plenty of Landfill Space
Does OUR town have plenty of room? I’d need to find out.
Can Cause Pollution (leachate)
This seems like a trap—the same thing happens in landfills as
it does in recycling. Depends on whether liners are being
used.
*Chemicals Cause Health
Problems
Yes, towns need to worry about the safety of its workers.
*Can Be Expensive
Yes, towns need to spend tax dollars wisely.
Political, Not Environmental
Not sure readers will agree. Seems outside of my purpose.
Supply Meets Demand
Not sure this will make sense to my readers. It seemed like a
stretch to me.
If you are PRO recyling, test
these reasons.
Are they relevant to your claim?
Reasons to Support Recycling
Reasons to Recycle
Saves Energy
Saves Natural Resources
(forests)
Creates Less Waste
Reduces Pollution (air,
water, soil)
Reduces Carbon Footprint
Reduces Landfill Use
Creates Jobs
Efficiency
Is this reason relevant to your claim?
If you are against recycling
(CON), test these reasons.
Are they relevant to your claim?
Reasons NOT to Support Recycling
Reasons NOT to Recycle
Plenty of Landfill Space
Can Cause Pollution (leachate)
Chemicals Cause Health Problems
Can Be Expensive
More Political Than Environmental
Supply Meets Demand
Is this reason relevant to our
town’s decision about
recycling?
SELECTING RELEVANT EVIDENCE
There will usually be MORE
evidence than you need.
Pick the strongest or most
COMPELLING facts.
Reasons to Recycle
1. Saves Energy
2. Saves Natural Resources
3. Reduces Pollution (air, water,
It can be helpful to number
your reasons (see the
sample chart)
soil)
4. Reduces Carbon Footprint
Then mark your articles to
show which reason a fact or
quote goes with (see the
next slide).
Positive Effects of Recycling
+
Preserves the Environment
Recycling protects the environment. As the demand for paper
increases, more trees are being cut. About 20% of all logs
collected from our forests are used to make new paper. About
28,000 liters of water, 4000 kilowatt hours of electricity and
2 barrels of oil are used to make one ton of new paper. About
2200 pounds of solid waste is generated in making paper.
By recycling paper, we save resources and create less waste.
Air pollution drops by 74% when paper is made from
recycled material instead of with new wood pulp. Recycling can
prevent the destruction of forests. Recycling a ton of mixed
paper or newspaper saves 12 trees. We need trees. They
help keep the air we breathe clean.
Flashdraft!
With your articles and
charts in hand, use this
framework to quickly
write a draft of your
argument.
Overview of
the Issue
Some people
say…
Other people
say…
My claim
and the most
compelling
evidence that
supports it
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
In the end, I
say…
Where will you find information for each
section?
Overview of the
Issue
Some people
say…
Other people
say…
My claim
and the most
compelling
evidence that
supports it
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
In the end, I
say…
PQP
Praise, Question, Polish
In partners or triads, switch drafts. Use Post-Its© to do the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
Where does the writer explain why he/she is writing and give us background
information about recycling? What more do you want to know?
Where does the writer let us know what the PRO recylclers think? What
more do you want to know?
Where does the writer let us know what the CON recylclers think? What
more do you want to know?
Where does the writer let us know what he/she thinks? How many pieces of
evidence does he/she use? What more do you want to know?
Where does the writer let us know what to do or think, now that we’ve read
the piece? What did you like? What suggestions do you have?
Switch back. Use these comments to make revisions to your draft.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
How can we explain the
process we just used?
How will we apply it to
our own research and
argument writing?
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Get Ready to Revise!
HOW COULD WE USE AUTHORIZING TO
ENHANCE OUR ARGUMENT?
Authorizing: Referring to an “expert” to
support the claim
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Authorizing is a move in
argument writing.
First, we select a compelling piece
of evidence.
Then we identify the source of the
evidence.
Finally, we show the importance of
that source, if it is not obvious.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
How is this writer using
AUTHORIZING?
We should recycle our old
electronics, says John Duncan, a
research chemist at the University
of Kentucky, because if we send
them to the landfill, they release
harmful, hazardous chemicals into
the environment.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
How is this writer using
AUTHORIZING?
We should recycle our old
electronics, says John Duncan, a
research chemist at the University
of Kentucky, because if we send
them to the landfill, they release
harmful, hazardous chemicals into
the environment.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
How are these writers
using AUTHORIZING?
“James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell
Information, Inc., one of the first companies in
the country to actually collect and publish
empirical data about waste disposal and
projected needs. In 1991, his company
discovered that, rather than running out of
landfill space, the United States had enough
working landfills for over 18 years at projected
capacity, more than enough to handle
expected waste.”—”What Can We Expect for
Future Landfill Fees and Space?” by Barbara
Hudson, Chartwell Information Services.
Retrieved 7-26-14 from
http://www.worldsweeper.com/Disposal/v6n2
landfills.html.
According to the
Manhattan
Institute’s Center for
Energy Policy and
the Environment
(2008), a
conservative think
tank, increased
regulation has
eliminated many
potential sites for
landfills, straining
our ability to dispose
of waste.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
How are these writers
using AUTHORIZING?
“James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell
Information, Inc., one of the first companies in
the country to actually collect and publish
empirical data about waste disposal and
projected needs. In 1991, his company
discovered that, rather than running out of
landfill space, the United States had enough
working landfills for over 18 years at projected
capacity, more than enough to handle
expected waste.”—”What Can We Expect for
Future Landfill Fees and Space?” by Barbara
Hudson, Chartwell Information Services.
Retrieved 7-26-14 from
http://www.worldsweeper.com/Disposal/v6n2
landfills.html.
According to the
Manhattan
Institute’s Center for
Energy Policy and
the Environment
(2008), a
conservative think
tank, increased
regulation has
eliminated many
potential sites for
landfills, straining
our ability to dispose
of waste.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
How might we change this
passage to use
AUTHORIZING?
“Never dump your used motor oil
down the drain — the used oil from
one oil change can contaminate one
million gallons of fresh water.” —United
States Environmental Protection Agency,
http://www2.epa.gov/recycle/how-do-i-recyclecommon-recyclables#gla
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
AUTHORIZING
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency warns to “[n]ever dump your
used motor oil down the drain — the
used oil from one oil change can
contaminate one million gallons of
fresh water.”
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Try it:
Review: Reread your draft. Did you tell where
your facts came from? If not, ADD the sources.
Think: Is the source reputable? In what ways is this
person or agency an “expert”?
Write: Where could you point out why the source is
credible? Find 2-3 places in your draft.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
PQP
Praise, Question, Polish
In partners or triads, switch drafts. Use Post-Its© to do the
following:
•
Has the writer identified the source of any information that came from the
article packet? Put a question mark by any fact that doesn’t have attribution
(identification of the source).
•
Look at the identifications of sources. Has the writer helped us see their
credibility? If not, what should be added?
Switch back. Use these comments to make revisions to your draft.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
How can we explain the
process we just used?
How will we apply it to
our own research and
argument writing in order
to make a stronger
connection between our
evidence and our claim?
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
More Revision!
COULD WE COUNTER SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT
OPPONENTS OF RECYCLING MIGHT OFFER?
Countering: “Pushing back” against the text
in some way (e.g., disagreeing with it,
challenging something it says, or
interpreting it differently)
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Countering is another move
in argument writing.
First, we acknowledge a claim
that is in opposition to ours.
Example: Others will argue that
our school should NOT increase
its recycling efforts.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Countering
Then, we identify evidence that our
opponents might use to support their claim.
Example: Those who are against more
recycling quote statistics that indicate
there is no landfill shortage. They claim
that “[i]f all the solid waste for the
next thousand years were put into a
single space, it would take up 44 miles
of landfill, a mere .01% of the U.S.
landspace.”—Cordato (1998)
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Countering
Finally, we suggest a different way of thinking
about their evidence:
Example: This statistic is extremely outdated,
however. A quarter of a century ago, it was
the best prediction of future landfill needs.
More recent analyses, however, note the
problem of increased regulation. These
regulations have eliminated many potential
sites for landfills, according to the Manhattan
Institute , Center for Energy Policy and the
Environment (2008), a conservative think tank.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Choose a piece of evidence that you highlighted
or put on your chart which does NOT support
your claim.
•
Acknowledge the other side’s claim:
•
Note the evidence they are using that we want to refute:
•
Suggest a different way of thinking about their evidence:
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
PQP
Praise, Question, Polish
In partners or triads, switch drafts. Use Post-Its© to do the
following:
Has the writer used the 3 steps?
• Acknowledge the other side’s claim.
• Note the evidence they are using that we want to refute.
• Suggest a different way of thinking about their evidence:
Is the wording clear? Accurate? Logical? What could the writer do to counter
even more effectively?
Switch back. Use these comments to make revisions to your draft.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
Next Steps: Add this to your draft.
Step
Step
Step
Revise your original flashdraft to include this new
text in which you counter their argument.
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education
How can we explain the
process we just used?
How will we apply it to
our own research in order
to make a stronger
argument?
Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education