Plastic Bag Ban Pros And Cons

A narrow rejection of a potential plastic bag ban has spurred up discussion among many newspaper journalists, one of them being Adam B Summers. In his editorial “Bag ban bad for Freedom and environment,” Summers used estimation, an appeal to Logos, and an appeal to Ethos to demonstrate the toll of a plastic bag ban would far outweigh its benefits. Following his quick introduction of the issue’s background, Summers immediately gave his estimation of the costs of the bag ban. He estimated the possible losses caused by the bag ban on retailers, highlighting the ban would cost “2 million dollars in total sales and 10,000 square feet of retail space” per year. Summers used such estimations to highlight that the suspected culprits of plastic bag pollution, the retailers, would be a major victim of the bag ban. This plausible estimation began the passage in a firm stance that the bag ban would cause more harm towards the people than solving the plastic pollution problem. Summers then enumerates a series of data from

The study presented an outbreak of E. Coli, salmonella, and Campylobacter related diseases following the San Francisco bag ban in 2007. As the study was conducted by prestigious law professors and statisticians, the author therefore portrays the bag ban as a threat towards public health. Through the appeal to ethos, he implied that the state-wide bag ban would only cause a bigger public health crisis and adds another consequence to his list of bag ban consequences. Therefore, Summers completed his argument that the bag ban would cause multiple problems. As a firm opponent of the Californian bag ban, Summers expressed his opinion that the bag ban would only cause many harm and no good through the use of estimation, appeal to ethos, and appeal to logos in his editorial “Bag ban bad for Freedom and