Question

claim & evidence
excerpt from should bottled water be banned
by penelope
there are many reasons why we should ban the use of plastic bottles. a lot of facts were surprising to me but, in the long run, make sense. for example, it surprised me how many plastic bottles were used per year compared to how many are recycled. americans alone used 50 billion bottles in 2006, but only recycled 38 billion. not only is it destroying the planet, but it’s not helping our wallets either. instead of just using tap water, which would be roughly $0.49 a year for eight glasses of water a day, we are spending $1,400 a year. there are cheaper and safer options for the environment. it makes me upset to see humans trashing the world. were supposed to take care of the earth, so why arent we?
what is the authors main claim in the passage?
a limiting plastic water bottle use will help the united states save money.
b limiting plastic water bottle use will improve the earth.
c limiting plastic water bottle use is cheaper and better for the planet.
d limiting plastic water bottle use has traditionally been
a difficult task.
what can the reader conclude about plastic water bottle use?
a people are not aware of how much money they spend on plastic water bottles.
b if this trend continues the world will run out of plastic.
c after realizing the overuse of plastic water bottles, people will begin to cut back.
d nothing can be done about the plastic water bottle crisis.
short answer: what text evidence supports the authors claim?

Explanation:

First Question (Author's Main Claim)

To determine the author's main claim, we analyze the passage. The author discusses two main points: the environmental harm of plastic bottles (e.g., low recycling rates destroying the planet) and the financial cost (e.g., spending $1,400 vs. $0.49 with tap water). Option A focuses only on saving money, Option B only on improving the Earth, Option D is about the task being difficult (not the main claim). Option C combines both the financial (cheaper) and environmental (better for the planet) aspects, matching the passage's content.

For the conclusion, we evaluate each option. Option B is incorrect as the passage is about plastic waste harm, not running out of plastic. Option C has no evidence in the passage about people cutting back. Option D is wrong as the author suggests alternatives (so something can be done). Option A is supported: the passage shows the cost difference (e.g., $1,400 vs. $0.49) implying people may not realize their spending on plastic bottles.

The author's claim is that limiting plastic water bottle use is cheaper and better for the planet. Evidence includes: "Americans alone used 50 billion bottles in 2006, but only recycled 38 billion" (shows environmental harm) and "Instead of just using tap water, which would be roughly $0.49 a year for eight glasses of water a day, we are spending $1,400 a year" (shows financial cost, proving cheaper alternatives exist and plastic use harms wallets/planet).

Answer:

C. Limiting plastic water bottle use is cheaper and better for the planet.

Second Question (Reader's Conclusion)