Use the information from the two sources to answer the question.
Source 1: Requiring school districts to recycle will reduce the emissions of greenhouses gases that damage the environment. School districts have many people in them and dispose of large amounts of waste. Their participation is necessary if recycling is going to have an impact on the environment.
Source 2: Outside recycling programs can be expensive for schools that need to use their district's money for educational programs and resources. While recycling is important for protecting our planet, getting all students to follow a specific program is not easy and can cause programs to be ineffective.
On which fact do the two sources disagree?
(1 point)
Responses
Successful recycling programs require the participation of many people.
Successful recycling programs require the participation of many people.
There are too many people in a school district to follow one plan.
There are too many people in a school district to follow one plan.
There is a need to protect the environment with recycling.
There is a need to protect the environment with recycling.
Recycling programs in schools damage the environment.
Recycling programs in schools damage the environment.
The two sources provided do not explicitly disagree on any of the four statements given as possible responses. However, the statements can be evaluated based on the content of the sources:
1. Successful recycling programs require the participation of many people.
Both sources seem to agree on this point. Source 1 states that school districts have many people and their participation is necessary for recycling to have an impact. Source 2 doesn't contradict this, rather it mentions the difficulty in getting all students to follow the program.
2. There are too many people in a school district to follow one plan.
Source 2 suggests that getting all students to follow a specific recycling program is not easy, which could be interpreted as there being too many people to follow one plan. However, this statement is not directly addressed in Source 1, which appears to advocate for the necessity of district-wide participation without commenting on the difficulty or feasibility. This is not a clear disagreement of fact, but an expression of a potential challenge in Source 2.
3. There is a need to protect the environment with recycling.
Both sources agree that there is a need to protect the environment with recycling. Source 1 argues for the necessity of school districts participating in recycling to make an environmental impact, and Source 2 acknowledges that recycling is important for protecting our planet.
4. Recycling programs in schools damage the environment.
Neither source claims that recycling programs in schools damage the environment. Source 1 clearly states that recycling will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, thus implying a positive environmental impact. Source 2 does not say that recycling damages the environment, but points out challenges in implementation.
The closest to a point of disagreement is perhaps related to the challenges in implementing recycling programs effectively, as indicated by Source 2, which mentions the difficulties and costs. However, none of the responses given as options directly address this nuance. In conclusion, based on the given options, there isn't a direct fact on which the two sources disagree, but if one must choose, the statement that comes closest to representing a potential implicit disagreement might be:
There are too many people in a school district to follow one plan.
This statement could interpret Source 2's mention of the difficulty of getting all students to follow a program as a disagreement with the idea that school districts can effectively manage such a program, which Source 1 seems to support. However, this is a very nuanced interpretation and not a clear-cut factual disagreement.
ANSWER THE QUESTION
Apologies for the confusion. Based on the context given, the two sources do not explicitly disagree on any particular fact. All of the listed possible responses do not directly represent a point of disagreement. However, since a response is required, the most appropriate answer based on the implied disagreement would be:
There are too many people in a school district to follow one plan.
This answer reflects the implicit concern in Source 2 regarding the challenges of implementing a uniform recycling program in a school district with many people, which could be seen as a disagreement with Source 1's implication that the participation of many people in school districts is essential and presumably manageable for successful recycling programs. However, keep in mind that this is an interpretation of the text, and the sources do not clearly state a factual disagreement on this point.
Based on the information from the two sources, the fact that the two sources disagree on is:
Recycling programs in schools damage the environment.
Source 1 argues that requiring school districts to recycle will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help protect the environment, indicating that recycling programs are beneficial for the environment.
On the other hand, Source 2 mentions that getting all students to follow a specific recycling program can be difficult and may cause programs to be ineffective. However, it does not argue that recycling programs in schools actually damage the environment.
Therefore, the disagreement is about the impact of recycling programs in schools on the environment. Source 1 sees them as beneficial, while Source 2 does not discuss any negative impact.