The Water Bottle Ban
You are writing a short persuasive piece for your school newsletter. The student council has proposed banning single-use plastic water bottles from the school canteen. You have these facts:
- The school sells about 400 plastic bottles per week.
- Each bottle costs $2.50; a reusable bottle costs $15.
- A local survey found 62% of students support a ban, 23% oppose it, and 15% are undecided.
- The canteen earns about $0.80 profit per bottle sold.
- Some students say they cannot afford a $15 reusable bottle.
Your task is to write a persuasive paragraph of about 120 words that takes a clear position and uses at least two of the facts, while acknowledging one counter-argument.
1. Write the persuasive paragraph.
Read the worked answer
A strong response takes a clear stance, uses specific numbers, and concedes one point fairly.
Model paragraph:
The school should phase in a ban on single-use plastic bottles. Students buy about 400 bottles a week-over 20,000 a year-and most end up as waste. A reusable bottle costs $15 once, while buying bottled water at $2.50 each adds up fast; within six weeks a regular buyer has spent more than a reusable bottle costs. Support is strong: 62% of students back a ban, against only 23% opposed. I accept that some families cannot easily afford $15 upfront, so the council should not simply forbid bottles overnight. Instead, it could run a subsidised scheme or a spare-bottle lending pool, funded partly by the canteen's bottle profits, before the ban begins. That way the environmental gain is real and no student is priced out.
2. Explain two choices you made to make the paragraph persuasive.
Read the worked answer
Concrete numbers instead of vague claims. Saying 'over 20,000 a year' and 'within six weeks' is more convincing than 'lots of waste' because readers can check the logic. The six-week comparison turns an abstract price into a personal calculation.
Conceding then answering the counter-argument. Rather than ignoring the affordability concern, the paragraph admits it is fair, then offers a solution (subsidy, lending pool). This builds credibility-readers trust a writer who acknowledges the other side-and it removes the strongest objection, which is more persuasive than pretending it does not exist. Naming the 62% support figure also signals that the position is mainstream, not extreme.