{Analyze the arguments that are presented in each of these articles.

In your response, develop an

argument in which you explain how one position is better-supported than the other. Incorporate relevant
evidence from both articles to support your argument. Remember, the better-argued position is not
necessarily the position with which you agree. This essay should take 45 minutes to complete}.

PASSAGE 01

Please Recycle!

by Alexandra Alesi

Recycling is an important tool for protecting our global environment. The threat of major climate change
looms on the horizon and continues to grow. We must take every action necessary to reduce the release
of harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Recycling isn’t enough on its own, but its
contributions are substantial. It reduces dangerous emissions in many significant ways: it conserves
natural resources, it prevents pollution, it saves energy, and it preserves the environment for future
generations.

At first glance, recycling seems fairly unremarkable. Its simplest definition is the repurpose of garbage to
make new goods. However, we must think more globally about what goes into making new goods. In
order to fashion a product, any product, there is a need to harvest natural resources, transport them to a
factory, build the product, and then ship it out to retail facilities. This involved process of harvesting,
transporting, building and shipping creates a tremendous environmental strain due to chemical gas
emissions, liquid and solid waste run-off, and gasoline consumption.

Recycling eliminates many steps from the manufacturing process. There is no need to harvest new
resources when one can simply repurpose those already harvested. This preserves natural resources,
and prevents the destruction that results from extracting them from the environment. Why cut down a
forest instead of recycling paper?

Patty Moore has been involved with recycling since 1983 and has her own recycling consultancy, Moore
Recycling Associates, which helps businesses, governments, and communities handle waste
management issues. She says that recycling can easily be accomplished on an individual level and scaled
up to a larger manufacturing level. “Reduce your consumption,” Moore says. “I know that this sounds as
if you have to give up something to help the environment, but it really doesn’t. Instead of hopping in the
car to go somewhere for quality-time with the family, plan activities that you can do at home together.”
It’s as simple as that.

Here are some amazing recycling statistics from the National Recycling Coalition:

Every ton of paper that is recycled saves 17 trees.

It takes 95% less energy to recycle aluminum than it does to make it from raw materials.

The energy we save when we recycle one glass bottle is enough to light a light bulb for four hours.

When one ton of steel is recycled, 2,500 pounds of iron ore, 1,400 pounds of coal and 120 pounds of
limestone are conserved.

A national recycling rate of 30% reduces greenhouse gas emissions as much as removing nearly 25
million cars from the road.

As you can see from these statistics, recycling is vitally important for the environment. It is the morally
sound thing to do to protect our beautiful planet for future generations. Please make sure you recycle!

PASSAGE 02

The Recycling Racket

by Jenni Sadler

Recycling is often held up as a simple, common sense step the average person can take towards saving
the world; this is a foolish presumption. Recycling’s benefits do not outweigh its costs, and it is ultimately
just a way for people to feel better about themselves, a method which, in many ways, is self-defeating.

The primary problem is that it’s not cost effective. Paying to set up a network of trucks and processing
centers to transport, receive, and repurpose trash is more expensive than creating and shipping new
products. This is why many communities charge extra fees to residents in order to provide recycling
pickup.

Recycling also produces carbon emissions through the transportation of recyclables and the recycling
centers. Recycled plastics, glass, and metals must pass through a complicated, energy-intensive process
in order to be turned into new products. Recycling itself uses three times more resources than does
depositing waste in landfills.

Some people argue that recycling preserves resources, but this is misleading. Recycling more
newspapers will not necessarily preserve trees, because many trees are grown specifically to be made
into paper. And of course, recycled newspapers must be de-inked, often with chemicals, thus creating
additional waste in the form of sludge. Glass is made from sand, the most abundant mineral in the crust
of the earth.

Many recycling proponents claim there is a shortage of landfill space, but this is absurd. Studies have
shown that holding all of America’s garbage for the next 100 years would only require a space that is 255
feet deep and 10 miles on each side.

The entire concept of recycling obscures the more important issues. Any benefits are meager, and
distract from the real environmental issues facing this country and the world. The vast majority of waste
and pollution in this country is industrial or agricultural in origin, and has little to do with what’s
consumed or thrown away in residential households. The public must instead focus on the much bigger
picture, tackling sources of carbon emissions and pollutants that far outweigh the amount of garbage
produced by the average consumer.

{BELOW IS THE BEST ESSAY SAMPLE TO SCORE PERFECT IN THE RLA EXAM}

INTRODUCTION

Lately, the issue of climate change has generated a lot of debate. Some people argue that climate change
is a hoax, claiming that all of our efforts are a waste of time. Others believe that recycling is vitally
important, playing a crucial role in maintaining our planet’s climate and ecology. The two opposing
passages above highlight the importance of this issue. However, the position arguing that recycling is an
important part of protecting our ecosystem is more credible, since it is much better-supported with
sound logical reasoning, detailed statistics, and a strong ethical plea.

BODY PARAGRAPH #1

The writer of the pro-recycling passage, unlike the writer of the anti-recycling passage, employs excellent
logical reasoning to convince the audience, explaining that recycling is more than simply placing paper
and plastic in their proper bins; it is an “involved process of harvesting, transporting, building and
shipping.” The author proves that recycling is logical by detailing how much waste is produced when
goods are created from scratch, driving home her logical argument with the simple question: “Why cut
down a forest instead of recycling paper?”

BODY PARAGRAPH #2

To lend even more credibility to her already logical argument, the writer includes statistics relevant to
recycling. In a clear, bullet-pointed list of data showing the importance of recycling, she provides relevant
and useful information: “It takes 95% less energy to recycle aluminum than it does to make it from raw
materials.” Recycling aluminum is worth the effort because making new aluminum is less efficient, and
the writer has data to prove it. The writer goes on to list four more pieces of data to support her
argument while the writer of the other passage only provides one.

BODY PARAGRAPH #3

Finally, the writer’s purposeful ethical plea in the pro-recycling passage more effectively calls the
audience to action. By writing, “It is the morally sound thing to do to protect our beautiful planet for
future generations,” the writer conjures images of clear blue skies and clean shining seas, helping the
reader emotionally connect to the argument. If we do not recycle, the writer implies, we will be
committing a sin against future generations. The writer finishes her argument with a passionate and
motivating plea to the audience: “Please make sure you recycle!”

CONCLUSION

Due to its strong logical reasoning, relevant statistics, and convincing ethical plea, the pro-recycling
position is better-supported and much more convincing than its counterpart. The writer of the anti-
recycling passage provides some evidence, but it is too vague to be convincing, and distracts from her
argument. More statistics about the cost of recycling, or more formal language would have made her
passage more academic, instead of just implying that people recycle simply to “feel better about
themselves,” which seems petty and unsupported. Without these improvements, the anti-recycling
position is less supported and significantly less convincing than its counterpart.

~~END~~

Commentary:

This sample essay would receive a perfect score on the GED. The writer clearly reviewed the prompt and
outlined the argument before writing. Generally, the response exhibits the following organization:

Paragraph 1 — Introduction

Paragraph 2 — Logical reasoning

Paragraph 3 — Statistics

Paragraph 4 — Ethics

Paragraph 5 — Conclusion

The introduction clearly previews the passage’s topic, explains both sides, and demonstrates that the
student understands each writer’s argument. The student uses strong, clear language and concludes
with a bold thesis statement that lists three reasons why the argument he or she chose is “better-
supported.”

In the body paragraphs, the student demonstrates a strong command of each of the scoring criteria:

Analysis of Arguments and Use of Evidence: The student quotes multiple sections of the passage to
support each point, demonstrating a clear understanding of the material presented.

Development of Ideas and Structure: The student develops coherent organization by focusing on a
supporting reason in each body paragraph and providing transitions like “In addition to” and “Finally” to
help the paragraphs flow together.

Clarity and Command of Standard English: The sentence structure is varied and effective, and the author
maintains proper spelling and grammar throughout.
Finally, the passage concludes with a brief concession to the opposing side, showing an ability to
recognize the complexity of the issue, before wrapping up the discussion with a summation of why the
pro-recycling passage is better-supported than the anti-recycling passage.