I did "Is Bottled Water Really Better?" by Lauren Tarshis. The claim is that bottled water is bad for the environment and the quote is " only about 30 percent of them are recycled" (Tarshis 21). The counter-claim is that plastic water bottled water is good. The author's purpose for this article is to inform because it has a lot of facts in the article I read.
The evidence for the claim Lauren Tarshis wrote, "they are not biodegradable, and though they can be recycled, only about thirty percent of bottled water are recycled" (21). This type of evidence is data and statistics. I know this because it has a percent number in it. This is a stronger piece of evidence because it shows that how many are recycled and show how bad the bottled water is for the environment. Lauren Tarshis wrote for the justification for the evidence on page 21 is "the rest wind up in the landfills where they will sit for hundreds of years." This type of justification is cause and effect. I know this because it gave a cause and an effect for it. My next evidence for the claim is "when they wind up in the landfills they are leaching out harmful chemicals into the ground" (Tarshis 21). This type of evidence is facts and figures. I know this because it is a true thing that happens in the landfills. This is a stronger piece of evidence because it shows how bad bottled water is for the environment. Lauren Tarshis wrote for the justification " The plastic bottled water are recycled almost thirty percent are not landing up in the landfills" (21). This type of justification is paraphrased. I know this because it isn't exactly what the text says. The last evidence that supports the claim is "most of this plastic is made from crude oil, about 17 million barrels of oil are purchased in the U.S." (Tarshis 20). This type of evidence is facts and figures. I know this because it is a true statement. This is a weaker piece of evidence because it does not have a lot of detail. The justification Lauren Tarshis wrote is "according to ep one million vehicles for twelve months can be powered up from that amount of oil" (20). This type of justification is cause and effect. I know this because it has a cause and effect in it. The evidence would have been stronger if the writer put what year it was taken. The justification would have been stronger if the writer put in more detail.
The counter-evidence is "in the US banning bottled water could increase the consumption of sugary beverages" (Tarshis 21). The counter justification Lauren Tarshis wrote is "sugary drinks are contributing to America's problem" (21). The rebuttal is "on the other hand, reusable water bottle are widely available" (Tarshis 21). This rebuttal is strong because there are other options when there is no bottled water. This rebuttal is weak because it isn't specific on what reusable water bottles are good for the environment. This rebuttal would have been stronger if they put in more details.