as throwing away a soft drink can?
I urge both the
council and the mayor to reject this misguided
proposal.
Chances are that no matter how you
feel about
mandatory
recycling programs, this passage provoked a
reaction in you. Perhaps you found some of the writer’s
arguments convincing; perhaps
they simply made you
want to argue back. But take another look at the passage.
Is there any appeal to your sense of logic here—reason,
evidence, or common sense? Or is the author only
appealing to your preexisting ideas and feelings about
environmentalism and government programs?
What Reasons Does the Writer Offer?
To help you see whether the writer’s appeals
are based
on logic or emotion, break down his argument. The
writer offers three different reasons for opposing the
mandatory recycling proposal. List them here.
1.
2.
3.
You probably noticed
that each of the three para-
graphs deals with a different reason that the writer
opposes the mandatory recycling program. They are:
1. Recycling programs do not help the environment
and people who support
the mandatory recycling
program do so simply in order to make them-
selves feel better about a declining environment.
2. The people who support mandatory recycling
also supported a failed
program to increase city
bus routes.
3. A mandatory recycling program would not actu-
ally cause people who do not presently recycle to
begin recycling.
Dostları ilə paylaş: 
