Synthesizing a News Report and an Op-Ed on a Plastic-Bag Ban
You are comparing two short texts about a city’s six-month-old ban on single-use plastic bags. Text A, a news report, states: street-cleaning crews collected 32% less plastic bag waste than in the same period last year; shopkeepers report a 15% rise in the cost of paper bags; the city has not funded a reusable-bag subsidy. Text B, an op-ed, argues: “The ban is mostly symbolic. Reusable bags must be used about 50 times before they offset the energy used to make them, so the city has simply shifted the burden to shoppers. Low-income families are hit hardest. The council should either subsidize reusable bags or repeal the ban.” Your task is to evaluate how well each text uses evidence, identify a claim that both texts could support, and recommend one next step for the city. You must not assume facts not stated.
1. Which claim could both texts support, and what evidence from each text supports it?
Read the worked answer
A claim both texts could support is that the ban has created new costs for shoppers. Text A supports it with the shopkeepers’ report of a 15% rise in paper-bag costs; Text B supports it by arguing that the city has “shifted the burden to shoppers.” The claim must be kept narrow: Text A does not say reusable bags are expensive, and Text B does not provide cost data. Also, both texts could support the weaker claim that the ban alone has not solved the cost of alternatives, because A notes no reusable-bag subsidy and B calls for one. They could not both support “low-income families are hit hardest,” since only B asserts that and A offers no income data.
2. Identify one unsupported or overgeneralized claim in Text B and explain what evidence would be needed.
Read the worked answer
Text B’s claim that “low-income families are hit hardest” is overgeneralized. The op-ed gives no income data, no survey, and no comparison between income groups; it moves from “shoppers bear a burden” to “the poorest bear the most.” To support it, the writer would need evidence such as the share of income spent on bags by income group, or data on how many low-income households reuse bags. The “50 times” figure is also unsourced; it may be a general estimate, but the text does not say where it comes from. “Mostly symbolic” is an evaluation, not a measured outcome, so it should be argued rather than stated as fact.
3. Recommend one next step and justify it using only the two texts.
Read the worked answer
A justified next step is a targeted reusable-bag subsidy, not immediate repeal. Text A shows a measurable reduction-32% less plastic-bag waste-so repeal would discard a policy with evidence of effect. Text A also states that the city has not funded a subsidy, and Text B identifies the burden on shoppers. A subsidy addresses that burden while keeping the waste reduction. However, the texts do not prove that low-income families are the most affected, so the city should pair the subsidy with income data or a small pilot. This recommendation uses only the stated evidence and admits its limits.