Analysis Of Bag Ban Bad For Freedom And Environment By Adam B. Summers

686 Words2 Pages

“Paper or plastic?” This is often a question customers are asked at the weekly trip to the supermarket to purchase groceries to keep families fed. Adam B. Summers has created a highly plausible argument that may change customer’s answer next time. In Summers’ “Bag ban bad for freedom and environment” editorial for the San Diego Union-Tribune, he argues against the possible laws hindering Californians from using plastic bags at grocery stores. He believes they would do more harm than good, and that “a little reason and perspective is in order.” By the end of this piece the reader will likely find themselves nodding in agreement with what Summers has to say, and this isn’t just because he’s right. Summers, like any good writer, employs tactical …show more content…

With key phrases like “taxpayers will have to pony up” and “borne by consumers,” Summers activates the nature of a human to act in their own self-interest. While one might view this as selfish, Summers reassures the reader that they are not alone in feeling this way, further contributing to his argument. With his statement that he “love[s] sea turtles as much as the next guy,” Summers adds acceptance to those who don’t care to act with regard for the environment. By putting himself beside the reader as a typical consumer, he equals them, and makes himself more likeable in the process. Appealing to environmentalists, too, Summers qualifies that they “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 . . .” A statement such as this is an attempt to get readers of either persuasion on his side, and his ingenious qualification only adds to the strength of his argument. An article focusing on the choice between “paper or plastic,” and how that choice might be taken away certainly seems fairly standard, but by adjusting his diction (i.e. using well known phrases, selecting words with strong connotations), Summers creates something out of the ordinary. It is with word choice such as “recycled rather than trashed” that the author reveals the legislation's intent to stir up a repeat bill. Because the issue at hand is one of waste and environmental protection, his humorous diction provides a link between he and the audience, revealing not only an opportunity to laugh, but also reinforcement of the concept that Summers is trustworthy and just like everyone else. Negative words with specifically poor connotations also aid Summers in his persuasive struggle. “Reprieve,” “dubious,” “bureaucracy,” and “evil incarnate” all depict a disparaging tone of annoyance and anger, surely helping Summers to spread his

Open Document