Please Evalulate my Argument Essay

[terchie]

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in Masontown:
“If we want to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees, we need to encourage our residents to recycle more. Late last year, our neighboring town, Hayesworth, passed a law requiring that all households recycle paper and glass, or pay a fine. Since that time, Hayesworth has seen its garbage disposal costs significantly decrease. If we implemented an advertising campaign encouraging our residents to recycle, Masontown would also save money on disposal of its waste. ”

The author suggests that a recycling program will alleviate costs from garbage disposal fees. However, the evidence provided is tenuous at best. The rationale fails to clarify several factors that counteract this argument.

The author first mentions that Hayesworth has seen a significant cost decrease from its recycling program. Although this statement may be true on the surface, the cost of setting up a recycling center is considerable. Recycling centers require extra equipment and labor to breakdown waste into a reusable item. The costs of these centers often outweigh the cost of a traditional disposal center. The costs of disposal may have decreased for Hayesworth, but the costs of recycling fees may have increased.

An advertising campaign is suggested to encourage recycling. However, the campaign itself will cost an unspecified amount of money. Will the campaign be funded through residents tax dollars? If so, the residents are simply saving money by spending it elsewhere; essentially netting no gains. Also, the effectiveness of the campaign is not addressed. Many people see advertisements and simply ignore them.

Lastly, although minute in comparison to the points above, the author mentions that Hayesworth required paper and glass to be recycled. Yet, the author provides no evidence that a significant portion of Mastontown's waste is either paper or glass. If Masontown's waste consists mostly of non-recyclable items, then a recycling program will provide less benefit than compared with Hayesworth.

Perhaps if the author addressed the issues above, the argument would be more convincing. An analysis on the true cost of recycling centers, a census on garbage contents, and a detailed advertising plan would solidify the letter. Without these items, the residents of Masontown should be wary of implementing a recycling program.