e challenge is huge. For one thing, the garbage is spread over millions of square miles. For another, it’s made up mostly of degraded plastic, broken down by sunlight and waves into tiny bits the size of grains of rice. 1 “at’s what makes it so horrifying,” Haymet says. “e micro-plastic 1 is the same size as the stuff living in the water column. 2How would we ever go out and collect it? So far no one’s come up with a plan to separate all the micro-plastic from the living life that’s the same size.” . . . 2 “If we are doubling what we are putting into the ocean on a ten-year basis, there’s no way to keep up,” says Chris Wilcox, an ecologist at CSIRO. 3 “It would be as if you were vacuuming your living room, and I’m standing at the doorway with a bag of dust and a fan. You can constantly keep vacuuming, but you could never catch up.” 3 Charles Moore, who “discovered” the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in the late 1990s and plans a research trip there in July, estimates that altogether the globe’s garbage patches contain 200 million tons of floating debris. He came up with the figure based on calculations that 2.5 percent of the world’s plastic ends up in the sea. 4 Marcus Eriksen, a marine scientist and co-founder of the California-based 5 Gyres, which studies the five main garbage patches, estimates the total floating debris is just 500,000 tons. 5 In either case, the harm to fish and other sea creatures is increasing. A 2009 research trip to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch by Scripps found 9 percent of the fish had ingested plastic. Eriksen, with help from seven other scientists, recently analyzed material in all of the garbage patches. Of 671 fish collected, 35 percent had ingested plastic particles.Haymet and like-minded ocean scientists haven’t given up. ey favor a low-tech, more practical approach to protecting the oceans from trash: Persuade the world’s people to stop littering. 7 Only about 20 percent of ocean plastic comes from marine sources, such as discarded fishing equipment or cargo ship mishaps. About 80 percent of it washes out to sea from beach litter or was carried downstream in rivers, according to the CSIRO study, which is considered the most comprehensive. 48 About half of that litter is plastic bottles. Most of the rest is packaging. 9 “All of that stuff was in a human’s hand at one point or another,” Wilcox says. “e essence 5of the solution is to provide incentives 6for people not to throw this stuff away. It is the cheapest, simplest, and far most effcient solution to the problem.” . . . 10 “When you think about climate change, it’s hard to reduce our carbon footprint, 7 because we have to go through a fundamental shiѕ in our economies,” Wilcox says. “With plastic, when you’re throwing a bottle cap on the ground, that should be an easy impact to get rid of.”

Question

e challenge is huge. For one thing, the garbage is spread over millions of square miles. For another, it’s made up mostly of degraded plastic, broken down by sunlight and waves into tiny bits the size of grains of rice. 1 “at’s what makes it so horrifying,” Haymet says. “e micro-plastic 1 is the same size as the stuff living in the water column. 2How would we ever go out and collect it? So far no one’s come up with a plan to separate all the micro-plastic from the living life that’s the same size.” . . . 2 “If we are doubling what we are putting into the ocean on a ten-year basis, there’s no way to keep up,” says Chris Wilcox, an ecologist at CSIRO. 3 “It would be as if you were vacuuming your living room, and I’m standing at the doorway with a bag of dust and a fan. You can constantly keep vacuuming, but you could never catch up.” 3 Charles Moore, who “discovered” the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in the late 1990s and plans a research trip there in July, estimates that altogether the globe’s garbage patches contain 200 million tons of floating debris. He came up with the figure based on calculations that 2.5 percent of the world’s plastic ends up in the sea. 4 Marcus Eriksen, a marine scientist and co-founder of the California-based 5 Gyres, which studies the five main garbage patches, estimates the total floating debris is just 500,000 tons. 5 In either case, the harm to fish and other sea creatures is increasing. A 2009 research trip to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch by Scripps found 9 percent of the fish had ingested plastic. Eriksen, with help from seven other scientists, recently analyzed material in all of the garbage patches. Of 671 fish collected, 35 percent had ingested plastic particles.Haymet and like-minded ocean scientists haven’t given up. ey favor a low-tech, more practical approach to protecting the oceans from trash: Persuade the world’s people to stop littering. 7 Only about 20 percent of ocean plastic comes from marine sources, such as discarded fishing equipment or cargo ship mishaps. About 80 percent of it washes out to sea from beach litter or was carried downstream in rivers, according to the CSIRO study, which is considered the most comprehensive. 48 About half of that litter is plastic bottles. Most of the rest is packaging. 9 “All of that stuff was in a human’s hand at one point or another,” Wilcox says. “e essence 5of the solution is to provide incentives 6for people not to throw this stuff away. It is the cheapest, simplest, and far most effcient solution to the problem.” . . . 10 “When you think about climate change, it’s hard to reduce our carbon footprint, 7 because we have to go through a fundamental shiѕ in our economies,” Wilcox says. “With plastic, when you’re throwing a bottle cap on the ground, that should be an easy impact to get rid of.”

(Using this context from the text the best way to deal with ocean trash)
and using the context from art for the sea below. both authors present claims about plastic trash. What is each author’s claim? How does each author support this claim? Which author’s argument is more convincing? Use details from both articles to support your response.

(Angela Haseltine Pozzi didn’t like seeing plastic trash washing up on the shore near her home in Bandon, Oregon. She wanted to rally 1her community to clean it up, so she started an organization and called it Washed Ashore: Art to Save the Sea. 1 Here’s how it works: Volunteers help clean up Oregon’s 300 miles of shoreline. en, using only plastics from the beach cleanup, Ms. Pozzi and her staff and many, many volunteers create sculptures of sea animals. 2 Ms. Pozzi says, “I want to create sculptures that make people take a look and think, ‘How can there be this much trash on the beach?’ e Washed Ashore sculptures, hopefully, will make people consider their plastic purchases and be aware of how much plastic ends up in the oceans.” . . . 3 People have used plastics to create life-saving medical devices, inexpensive containers and gadgets, and toys, of course. But unlike wood, cotton, and other natural materials, plastics don’t break down into anything useful to other living things. Instead, they stay for years in landfills, waterways, and the oceans. e materials are harmful to some sea animals, such as turtles, sea lions, and birds. Some of these creatures eat plastic objects that look like food. Others become entangled in plastic nets or packaging. 4 Many people are working to keep plastics out of the oceans. When they can, they buy things that are made of natural materials. ey recycle the plastics they use, and they dispose of plastic trash properly. Still, far too many plastics end up in the oceans. Some are dumped directly into the sea. Others are washed down creeks and rivers, which flow into oceans. And others are le lying on land, where winds carry them down to shores and into the water. 5 “Remember, sea level is downhill from everywhere,” Ms. Pozzi says.6 Most Washed Ashore sculptures are about 9 feet tall and take from six months to a year to complete. One of the first was Henry the Giant Fish, a 15-foot-long red-and-yellow fish. . . . 7 In the sculptures, viewers can see what each piece was before it became part of)

Answer 1

In the first article, the author's claim is that the increasing amount of plastic trash in the ocean is a huge challenge and difficult to deal with. They support this claim by highlighting the vast size of the garbage patches, the difficulty of collecting micro-plastic, and the increasing harm to sea creatures. The author argues that the most practical solution is to persuade people to stop littering.

In the second article, the author's claim is that creating art from plastic trash can raise awareness about the issue and encourage people to reduce their plastic consumption. They support this claim by explaining how Angela Haseltine Pozzi started the organization Washed Ashore, which cleans up beaches and uses the collected plastics to create sculptures of sea animals. The author emphasizes the harmful effects of plastics on sea animals and the importance of keeping plastics out of the oceans.

Both authors present valid arguments, but the second author's argument is more convincing because they offer a tangible solution and provide evidence of its effectiveness. The art created by Washed Ashore serves as a visual representation of the problem and can have a powerful impact on raising awareness and changing behavior. On the other hand, the first author primarily focuses on the challenges posed by plastic trash without proposing a specific solution.