Help with homework

Outline a Persuasive Proposal

Persuasion Proposal on Recycling Water Bottles

Introduction

Millions of people use plastic water bottles because we all need to drink water to stay healthy. On the other hand, many people don't know that drinking from a plastic bottle may be worse for your health than good. Use refillable water bottles instead of single-use plastic bottles because they are cheaper, healthier, and better for the environment. Some refillable water bottles are made of plastic, but they are meant to be used more than once. Even though refillable water bottles may seem pricey at first, they will save you money in the long run (Mauroner,2019).

Purpose Statement

This thesis aims to find out how people feel about reusable water bottles and how they use them. Because it might be possible to cut down on single-use plastic bottles, data from interviews and a study on reusable water bottles were compared to current research on reusable containers and consumers' values, attitudes, drinking habits, and socio-demographics. You can learn about consumer motivations, challenges, preferences, and sociodemographic characteristics in the market for reusable water bottles by comparing and contrasting the sources in meaningful ways.

Background

These pollutants hurt the biosphere and make our air dirty. To make the plastic water bottles we use, 1.5 million barrels of oil are needed every year. When bottled water is moved by truck, it causes more pollution and uses more gas. The United States makes 26 billion plastic bottles every year. This is about how much 30 million tons of trash made of plastic weigh (Astolfi,2021). Many of them are thrown away instead of being recycled. A plastic bottle takes hundreds of years to break down and be taken in by the environment. We'll still have to deal with the bottles that are currently rotting away in landfills for a while.

We can save money by refilling our reusable bottles for free at home or a water fountain. Aside from being convenient, the water might not be safe for people to drink. When we buy bottled water, we care more about how easy it is than how it affects the environment. Because of this, very few of us know how much money we are wasting or how much damage it is doing to the environment. But there are water bottles that can be refilled with filtered water (Jouck, 2018). Even though refillable water bottles are more expensive, Walmart has a lot of them, and they are not too expensive.

Refilling a plastic container could lead to things you didn't expect. Low-quality plastic water bottles that can only be used once are better for a person's health than water bottles that can be used repeatedly. There is something called polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, in plastic bottles that is bad for your health. Even worse, there are even more dangerous chemicals in plastic bottles. BPA has been shown to cause cancer and problems with hormones. People should never eat or drink things that are bad for their health.

Conclusion

More than half of the people in the world drink bottled water every day. One of the best things about this product is that you can carry water in a bottle. But this ease of use comes at a high cost to the environment and has effects. Some of the problems are with making and distributing bottled water and the damage that empty bottles do to marine life. Most crude oil is used to make plastic water bottles. Nickel, benzene, and ethylene oxide, among other pollutants, are made during the production process.

References.

1. Astolfi, M. L., Castellani, F., Avino, P., Antonucci, A., Canepari, S., Protano, C., & Vitali, M. (2021). Reusable Water Bottles: Release of Inorganic Elements, Phthalates, and Bisphenol A in a “Real Use” Simulation Experiment. Separations, 8(8), 126.

2. D., Magerman, K., Bruckers, L., Waumans, L., Forier, A., Blommen, M., & Walgraeve, D. (2018). Reusable endoscopic water bottles: is daily renewal really necessary?. Journal of Hospital Infection, 100(3), e135-e137.

3. Mauroner, F. L. (2019). An analysis of the customer perception and usage preferences of reusable water bottles in the German market (Doctoral dissertation).

SAMPLE ESSAY

Research question: How should ethical concerns direct the choices that people make about eating meat?

Working thesis statement: For ethical and environmental reasons, people should limit their beef consumption, and the beef that they do eat should be humanely raised, locally sourced, and grass-fed.

Detailed Outline

I. Working Thesis in Introduction: For ethical and environmental reasons, people should limit their beef consumption, and the beef that they do eat should be humanely raised, locally sourced, and grass-fed.

A. Hook with description statistics on beef consumption.

B. Introduce two concerns: humane treatment, environment Source: Davis and Lin on statistics on beef consumption in the U.S.

II. Ethical Issues

A. Animals feel pain

B. CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations)

C. Inhumane treatment of domesticated cattle Source 1: Grandin and Smith, paragraph 2 Source 2: Pollan on ethical conflicts, paragraphs 32 and 40

III. Environmental Issues

A. Mono-cropping: feed for cattle and transport

B. Manure: contamination, transport, ground water

C. Antibiotics: rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria Source 1: Lappe on mono-cropping com/soy and production, page 22 Source 2: Sager on manure issues, paragraph 7 Source 3: Palmer on antibiotics, paragraph 12

IV. Health Benefits of Grass-Fed

A. Higher in vitamins A and E and contains half the saturated fat and more omega-3 fatty acids, all of which fight cancer and heart disease

B. Cows are healthier, so their meat is healthier to consume.

C. Note that organic is a separate category. Source 1: Ruechel on health benefits, page 235 Source 2: Sager on organic note, paragraphs 10-15

V. Environmental Benefits of Grass-Fed Beef

A. Local production is better for the climate

B. Forage is better for the climate than corn/soy

C. Some meat consumption is good for the planet. Source 1: Lappe on climate change, page 11 Source 2: Pollan on local and diverse, end of article

VI. Counterargument

A. Rainforest razing in South America – increases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and depletes the ozone layer

B. Travel distance from S. America & Australia is environmentally negative – depends on fossil fuels Source 1: Brown and Funk, and Sage, on issues w/grass-fed cattle in the developing world. Source 2: Pollan (and possibly Lappe) on “season” for beef

VII. Conclusion

A. Grass-fed is better on both ethical and environmental grounds, but the real answer is to eat less beef overall.

B. Emphasizing respect for animals solves ethical dilemmas Source 1: Pollan on eating less and the ethics of being choosy, paragraph 82