L EARNING ABOUT AN I SSUE ( RECYCLING ) C ONSIDERING S OURCE C REDIBILITY S ELECTING R ELEVANT E VIDENCE M AKING AND S UPPORTING A C LAIM D RAFTING AND

LEARNING ABOUT AN ISSUE (RECYCLING)

CONSIDERING SOURCE CREDIBILITY

SELECTING RELEVANT EVIDENCE MAKING AND SUPPORTING A

CLAIMDRAFTING AND REVISING

STRATEGIES FOR ARGUMENT WRITING

Jean WolphMarch 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 that do not support our claims.Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

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)

We’ll practice some ways that writers use sources to develop their arguments:


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

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?





Communicating the Benefits of Recycling


CONSIDERING SOURCE CREDIBILITY

Which are informational? Which are opinion?


Look for clues!

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)

Which are informational? Which are opinion?





Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA


Look at your packet. Which of these seem more credible? Less credible?

Why?



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


Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which of these seem credible? Less credible?Why?


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



Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (informational)


We’ll read the informational articles first.


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)

Positive and Negative Effects of Recycling

Adapted from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/positive-and-negative-effects-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.

What will this article be about?

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/positive-and-negative-effects-of-recycling.html

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/positive-and-negative-effects-of-recycling.html

Positive Effects of Recycling

Preserves the EnvironmentRecycling 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.

Where can we find the main reasons, pro or con?

+

Let’s add to our chart.




Protects the Environment




What are the key facts that show recycling PROTECTS the environment?

+

What we SAVE!

Partner Work: Use the article headings to finish the chart.




Protects the Environment

Which of these relate to protecting the environment?

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 EnergyRecycling 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 PollutionPlastic 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 FootprintProcessing 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 EnergyRecycling 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 PollutionPlastic 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 FootprintProcessing 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.

+

+

+Possible evidence

Conserves Natural ResourcesRecycling 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 UseThe 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 JobsAbout 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 ResourcesRecycling 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 UseThe 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 JobsAbout 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.

Possible evidence

Negative Effects of Recycling

Are there harmful effects of recycling? Water and Soil PollutionIf 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. CostPaper 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.

HealthIn 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 PollutionIf 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. CostPaper 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.

HealthIn bleaching recycled paper, harsh chemicals are used that can cause health problems to workers.

Possible evidence

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.

PQPPraise, 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)

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.



Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BENEFITS OF RECYCLINGAdapted from an article by the Environmental Protection AgencyRetrieved 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).

Hint: Where will you

find REASONS

in this article?

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/solidwastebenefits.htm




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.)


New information


Add to your chart.




Reduces air pollution (from incinerators)

Why do we still want to know

BOTH sides?

So we can acknowledge and counter

what the opposing side thinks.




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 might this article help us

with when we write?

Our introduction!

Explaining what recycling is.


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 analysisRetrieved 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.

Identify any NEW

compelling evidence.

Is this what you added to your chart?




Efficiency





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.

Possible new evidence

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.


Now let’s read the opinion pieces.


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








Plenty of landfill space

Underline key words and phrases that show

the author’s point of view.The Mises Institute monthly

December 1995Volume 13, Number 12Retrieved 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.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=212

The Mises Institute monthly

December 1995Volume 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.

Possible

answers

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=212

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.

Possible

answers

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








Recyling is about politics, not about environmental needs.

Supply meets demand.

Research OverviewReasons 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

What reasons did we find that support recycling? Not recycling?

SELECTING RELEVANT EVIDENCE Which reasons will be most convincing or most relevant to your claim?

Research OverviewReasons to Recycle Reasons NOT to Recycle

Saves Energy Plenty of Landfill Space



Creates Less Waste Chemicals Cause Health Problems


Can Be Expensive

Reduces Carbon Footprint More Political Than Environmental

Reduces Landfill Use Supply Meets Demand

Creates Jobs

Efficiency

Reasons to Support Recycling

Reasons to Recycle Is this reason relevant to families?

Saves Energy


Creates Less Waste


Reduces Carbon Footprint

Reduces Landfill Use

Creates Jobs

Efficiency

PRO Claim: Our families should recycle to save the environment.

Which reasons will be most convincing or most relevant to our claim? EXPLAIN WHY.


Reasons to Recycle Is this reason relevant to families?

Saves Energy Yes, because this leads to a better quality of life.


Yes, because families care about the future for their children and grandchildren.

Creates Less Waste Maybe not directly.


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.

PRO Claim: Our families should recycle to save the environment.

Reasons NOT to Support Recycling

Reasons NOT to Recycle

Is this reason relevant to our town’s decision about recycling?

Plenty of Landfill Space


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 Claim: Our town should not recycle because of the cost and the dangers involved.


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.


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.

CON: Which reasons will be most convincing or most relevant to your claim?


Reasons to Recycle

Is this reason relevant to your claim?

Saves Energy


Creates Less Waste


Reduces Carbon Footprint

Reduces Landfill Use

Creates Jobs

Efficiency

If you are PRO recyling, test these reasons. Are they relevant to your claim?

If you are aware of who you are writing to (your audience), it’s easier to make sure you select evidence that is relevant to your claim.


Reasons NOT to Recycle Is this reason relevant to our town’s decision about recycling?

Plenty of Landfill Space


Chemicals Cause Health Problems

Can Be Expensive

More Political Than Environmental

Supply Meets Demand

If you are against recycling (CON), test these reasons. Are they relevant to your claim?

If you are aware of who you are writing to (your audience), it’s easier to make sure you select evidence that is relevant to your claim.

SELECTING RELEVANT EVIDENCE

There will usually be MORE evidence than you need. Pick the strongest or most COMPELLING facts.

It can be helpful to number your reasons (see the sample chart)

Then mark your articles to show which reason a fact or quote goes with (see the next slide).

Reasons to Recycle

1. Saves Energy

2. Saves Natural Resources

3. Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil)

4. Reduces Carbon Footprint




Coding your evidence to match the reason+

1

3

2

4

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 claimand the most compelling

evidence that supports it

In the end, I say…

Where will you find information for each section?


Overview of the Issue

Some people say…

Other people say…

My claimand the most compelling

evidence that supports it

In the end, I say…

Info

abo

ut r

ecyc

ling

Rea

sons

for

Rea

sons

aga

inst

Cla

im, s

tron

gest

rea

sons

& n

umbe

red

evid

ence

My

conc

lusi

on



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.

How can we explain the process we just used?

How will we apply it to our own research and argument writing?


HOW COULD WE USE AUTHORIZING TO ENHANCE OUR ARGUMENT?

Authorizing: Referring to an “expert” to support the claim

Get Ready to Revise!


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.


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.

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.

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/v6n2landfills.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.


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/v6n2landfills.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.


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-recycle-common-recyclables#gla


http://www2.epa.gov/recycle/how-do-i-recycle-common-recyclables#gla



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.”


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.





• 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?



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?


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)

More Revision!


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.


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)


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.

We’re also

AUTHORIZING

here, as we

draw on

information

from a

recognized

authority, The

Manhattan

Institute.


• 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:

Choose a piece of evidence that you highlighted or put on your chart which does NOT support your claim.





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?


Next Steps: Add this to your draft.

Revise your original flashdraft to include this new text in which you counter their argument.


Step

Step

Step


How will we apply it to our own research in order to make a stronger argument?


Documents

L EARNING ABOUT AN I SSUE ( RECYCLING ) C ONSIDERING S OURCE C REDIBILITY S ELECTING R ELEVANT E VIDENCE M AKING AND S UPPORTING A C LAIM D RAFTING AND