Bag Ban Bad For Freedom And Environment Rhetorical Analysis

Adam B. Summers address the people of California in his 2013 article, “Bag Ban Bad for Freedom and Environment.” California had just recently escaped a bill that would ban all plastic bags in stores. This upset many environmentalists, so Summers wrote his article to show why plastic bags should exist in society. Summers’ article could easily fail as an argument, as many people support the environment and have continuously heard about the dangers of plastic bags. However, Summers builds three tiers of arguments by cleverly using rhetorical strategies. In his article “Bag Ban Bad for Freedom and Environment,” Summer approaches the argument reasonably and logically, uses multiple sources of evidence and facts, and appeals to people’s sense of freedom to effectively convince readers people should have the ability to choose to buy plastic bags. First, Summers approaches the argument logically, instead

He states, “environmentalists have every right to try to convince people to adopt certain beliefs or lifestyles, but they do not have the right to use government force to compel people to live the way they think best.” Summers reveals a flaw in the plan to use the government to ban plastic bags. Studies show plastic bags actually help society, so banning them would force society to adopt a lifestyle change. However, America allows people to make choices and live life freely. Ending his essay, Summers summarizes his point, “In a free society, we are able to live our lives as we please…That includes the right to make such fundamental decisions as “Paper or plastic?” Environmentalists know they need freedom to continue advocating for their causes, so they must show this freedom to others. By saving this argument for the end, Summers clinches an already strong argument by showing readers why Americans have an inherent right to choose plastic