Adam B. Summers, in his San Diego Union-Tribune article "Bag Ban Harmful to Freedom and Environment" "environment" uses skill and great dialectical decision, logic, patterns, humor, measurable evidence, power contests, precedents of normal daily existence and common sense, and attempts at feeling to make its point, particularly that a ban on bags of single-use plastic or paper aside Some large retail outlets in California would actually be bad for the earth, despite clearly and needlessly encroaching on the population's opportunities. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In the main section of the article passage, Summers paints a picture of government disruption on opportunities close to home bordering on a police state or “gatekeeper” state,” expressing “It is not the substance that tells us how much exhaust they can discharge our toilets or what kind of light we can use to illuminate our homes, some legislators and hippies are currently focused on choosing for us what kind of support we can use to convey our basic needs." Summers' choice of words makes that these problems appear insignificant, and the general population advising people in general how to deal with these problems seems to be a pushy eavesdropper, if not an outright bullying jerk. It makes the user wonder “Why would anyone matter how much water I use to flush my latrine, what lights I use, or what type of bags I use at the market. I haven't had people stick their noses into my own decisions since I was in high school! These people can go jump in a lake in case they don't care about my decisions – I don't educate them!" In the second section, expressing disappointment with the bill, however, the California Assembly supports the goal of re-introduce the bill, Summers says “Expect this bill to be reused rather than destroyed,” contrasting a bill with trash that can be reused or thrown into landfill as non-recyclable waste, which has a somewhat amusing impact on Nella third section, Summers states that "open discussion about plastic bag bans often boils down to saving the planet, minerals, protecting marine life, a little reason and a point of view all come together", which portrays supporters of boycotting plastic packaging as being overly passionate to the point of stupidity Unexpectedly, this statement is itself a concern for feelings, essentially suggesting that people who want to boycott plastic packaging are foolish high school neo-hipster tree huggers. In the fourth passage, Summers refers to an Environmental Protection Agency thesis showing that plastic wrappers, packages and bags account for only about 1.6% of all losses in US landfills, and packages of HDPE plastics, the type typically used as bags for basic necessities, represent only 0.3% of that aggregate. This use of information makes the whole basic supply package issue seem minor, but it overlooks the question of why consumers and retailers shouldn't reduce that figure to 0.0% if that's possible. However, Summers answers this question later in his publication. In the fifth step, the author uses insights to support his thesis that plastic packaging is actually preferable to nature than plastic bags,referring to measurements that show that plastic packaging requires substantially less energy and energy. water to be dispensed. It also notes that plastic bags require less energy to transport than paper packages, as plastic is smaller and takes up less space. He neglects to refer to the source of such insights, or perhaps the reference is excluded in the excerpt provided, which marginally debilitates his claim, yet most readers will give him "the opportunity to be vindicated" and expect that Summers has a reliable source, which is certainly not an intelligent thought (people occasionally lie or distort reality in newspapers). In passage 6, the author states that even reusable plastic bags have a greater impact than single-use plastic packaging and refers to an examination conducted by two law teachers (one from the University of Pennsylvania and the other from George Mason University) demonstrating a spike in crisis room confirmations following the San Francisco plastic packaging boycott. Summers refers to that law teachers' examination as an expression of the crisis room's claims that they were caused by bacterial contamination of the food, which was the result of the sustenance situation in packages that had been reused without adequate cleaning. Eventually, as indicated by the creator, the accumulation of the past food allowed the microbes to develop and the microorganisms pervaded the new sustenance placed in the packages, causing the general population that ate the food to become debilitated. This is using measurements from what gives the impression of being solid sources, similarly a competition from power (therapeutic sources and high graduate school teachers tend to be accepted, and people who compete for those sources face clear reactions such as "You are not a specialist: how can you oppose what the specialists tell us?"). Of course, this is also a big concern for feelings: it basically says "Reusing plastic packaging will make you sick!" Summers similarly fails to reference any sources that might support his explanation that reusable bags have a larger carbon footprint than plastic packaging, and neglects to note whether the larger carbon footprint is only for manufacturing and transportation, or for the entire existence of the package. That is, if a bag of material can be reused 50 times, then the assembly and transport of 50 packs of plastic should be contrasted with the assembly and transport of a bag of fabric, with some compensation for the way in which the bag of material would have to be transported from home to the store again, marginally expanding the impression of the material package. The user who sees this problem will likely accept his explanation for neglecting to address this issue is that reusable packaging (material, plastic, etc.) actually has a smaller carbon footprint or potentially takes up less landfill space once all the variables have been resolved. considered, and Summers is deliberately “overlooking” this point. This really weakens Summers's case for people who see this point, and furthermore the likelihood that compostable common fiber bags are significantly better for the earth than plastic (for example, the vast majority know that cotton normally breaks down and much faster than plastic). The seventh step is Summers' reference to common sense and normal, consistent events, and he also promotes measures to support this thesis. He draws attention to the fact that the.