Question

every year, according to the environmental protection agency, americans throw away millions of pounds of garbage. where does this garbage go? what is done with it? who has to handle it? these are probably questions wed rather all not think about, but we must. most materials that end up in landfills include glass, steel, aluminum, metals, paper, and electronics. these materials are all recyclable. if we were to remove all recyclable materials from landfills and actually recycle them, it would free up a lot of space. this is why i believe that americans should be required to recycle goods, and should receive a fine if they choose not to do so. in europe, garbage bags cost more per bag than bags that hold recycling. this deters people from overusing garbage bags, and causes them to stop and think before simply throwing something away that could be recycled. if you were paying for every piece of garbage you threw into the can, youd probably stop and think too. so the government doesnt necessarily need to directly fine people, but could rather indirectly fine people by charging more per garbage bag. these funds could then go to causes like cleaning up waters and creating more efficient landfills. there could also be a more direct fine, comparable to getting a parking ticket. just as parking tickets raise millions of dollars for cities every year. which statement should pierce add to the text to address the counter - argument that fines for people who do not recycle would be difficult to enforce? 1. if cameras can be used to stop drivers from speeding, surely we can find a way to fine people who are not recycling. 2. both recycling and waste generation have increased per person from 1980 to 2010, but waste generation rates are higher. 3. it is unfair to punish people if they are not aware of recycling options available to them, so we must first educate people. 4. in san francisco, garbage collectors sort through color - coded bins to make sure people are recycling and give them a ticket if they are not.

Explanation:

The counter - argument is about difficulty in enforcing fines for non - recyclers. Option 1 uses the example of cameras being used to stop speeding as an analogy to show that a way can be found to enforce fines for non - recyclers. Option 2 focuses on education rather than enforcement. Option 3 is about fairness in punishment. Option 4 is about garbage collectors sorting bins in San Francisco, not about enforcement of fines.

Answer:

1. If cameras can be used to stop drivers from speeding, surely we can find a way to fine people who are not recycling.