"Californians dodged yet another nanny-state regulation recently when the state Senate narrowly voted down a bill to ban plastic bags statewide, but the reprieve might only be temporary," worries Adam B. Summers. In his article, "Bag Ban Bad for Freedom and Environment," Summers constructs a convincing argument as to why plastic shopping bags should not be banned. Attempting to sway readers away from potential California laws banning plastic grocery bags, he covers a broad range of topics, from environmental concerns to the job market. Summers utilizes reliable sources, emotionally appeals to the reader, and tactically chooses his words, all in order to protect his plastic bag liberties. Facts alone can persuade a reader, but many will not be swayed without legitimate sources. Through referencing studies and other reliable sources, Summers gives readers more reasons to believe him. Merely stating that plastic bags, sacks, and varied wraps constitute only 1.6 percent of municipal solid waste materials would not convince all environmentally-conscious readers. Hence, Summers states his source …show more content…
To show that the debate on banning plastic bags may return in the California State Senate, he states, "so expect this fight to be recycled rather than trashed." Through this statement, Summers expresses his worry in a clever manner. Rather than writing directly, Summers uses the words "recycled" and "trashed" to reference a common environmental concern (waste disposal). Readers may find this humorous, hence more likely remaining interested and retaining the information presented. Furthermore, while introducing the main argument, he writes, "a little reason and perspective is in order." This implies that the plastic bag ban has no " reason and perspective," a strong statement that would ensure a reader's attention, while also, like the previous example, making him or her