Question

Please make sure that you respond to both passages and follow closely to the three questions in the prompts (bullets). Do NOT do additional research on the topic. The purpose of the exercise is to analyze the existing passages; not to demonstrate additional research skills. You do not need to provide a Works Cited or Reference page. Note: there is no page limit, however, you need to sufficiently answer the prompts in essay format.

Holistic Assessment of Critical Thinking

Essay Directions:

Read the passages below and write an essay that addresses the following:

• What is the position in each passage?

• What evidence or reasons are given in support of each position?

• Which position is more convincing and why?

Do no additional research on the topics other than using a dictionary.

The Controversy: Does buying green products improve the environment?

Passage 1. Con: from “Buying Green Products Is an Inadequate Environmental Remedy” by Monica Hesse

"When wannabe environmentalists try to change purchasing habits without also altering their consumer mind-set, something gets lost in translation."

Buying green is a sign that people recognize the need to protect the environment, claims Monica Hesse in the following viewpoint. However, she argues, consuming green products is not the solution. Consumption will not solve the nation's environmental challenges, Hesse explains. To be truly green means to buy less, not green, she maintains. Replacing products thought to be environmentally unsound increases consumption, which in turn increases environmental problems, she reasons.

In satiric fashion, she admonishes the green consumer:

“Congregation of the Church of the Holy Organic, let us buy.”

“Let us buy Anna Sova Luxury Organics Turkish towels, 900 grams per square meter, $58 apiece. Let us buy the eco-friendly 600-thread-count bed sheets, milled in Switzerland with U.S. cotton, $570 for queen-size.”

“Let us purge our closets of those sinful synthetics, purify ourselves in the flame of the soy candle at the altar of the immaculate Earth Weave rug, and let us buy, buy, buy until we are whipped into a beatific froth of free-range fulfillment.”

“And let us never consider the other organic option—not buying—because the new green consumer wants to consume, to be more celadon than emerald, in the right color family but muted, without all the hand-me-down baby clothes and out-of-date carpet.”

Passage 2. Pro: from “Buying Green Products Will Improve the Environment” by Jenny Shank

"There's a certain thrill, that you get to go out and replace everything," says Leslie Garrett, author of "The Virtuous Consumer," a green shopping guide. "New bamboo T-shirts, new hemp curtains."

Garrett describes the conflicting feelings she and her husband experienced when trying to decide whether to toss an old living room sofa: "Our dog had chewed on it—there were only so many positions we could put it in" without the teeth marks showing. But it still fulfilled its basic role as a sofa: "We could still sit on it without falling through." They could still make do.

They could still, in this recession-wary economy, where everyone tries to cut back, subscribe to the crazy notion that conservation was about ... conserving. Says Garrett, "The greenest products are the ones you don't buy."

There are exceptions. "Certain environmental issues trump other issues," Garrett says. "Preserving fossil fuels is more critical than landfill issues." If your furnace or fridge is functioning but inefficient, you can replace it guilt-free.

Ultimately, Garrett and her husband did buy a new sofa (from Ikea—Garrett appreciated the company's ban on carcinogens). But they made the purchase only after finding another home for their old couch—a college student on Craigslist was happy to take it off their hands.

The sofa example is what Josh Dorfman, host of the Seattle radio show "The Lazy Environmentalist," considers to be a best-case scenario for the modern consumer. "Buying stuff is intrinsically wrapped up in our identities," Dorfman says. "You can't change that behavior. It's better to say, 'You're a crazy shopaholic. You're not going to stop being a crazy shopaholic. But if you're going to buy 50 pairs of jeans, buy them from this better place.'"

Then again, his show is called "The Lazy Environmentalist."

Source Citations

Hesse, Monica. "Buying Green Products Is an Inadequate Environmental Remedy." The Environment, edited by Louise I. Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context

Shank, Jenny. "Buying Green Products Will Improve the Environment." The Environment, edited by Louise I. Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context

Answer 1

Monica Hesse, think Consumption of Green product or eco friendly product is not sufficient now a days, if we have to Protect environment then have to stop more buying of new things, replace anything instead that, Replace same product to someone and after that buy same Product,

Current generation always buy a new product as per trend and throws out used product because of trends, or it is outdated, and also exiting product have some issue, that's why they did not go for repair, if we just throw out and buy new product for full fill their needs, but it is environmental loss, because for new product production need environmental components, and also existing product consume same components, that's why it impact on environment,

As per Monica if we buy same product which is eco-friendly, green product that time also same components will be consumed, and we can't save environment.,

Here she describe very well concept, She thing instead of that consumers have to buy new product have to Replace old product or sell someone needy and after that buy new product it is called Environment protecting. It is position of first passage.,

In second passage it is clearly show if have to save environment then, Preserving fossil fuels is more critical than landfill issues, that's why have to protect Environment is more important than other things as per Garrett, She really provide good example of their own "Sofa set" which is useful and Well condition for sitting, only it is chewed by their dog, and that’s why they want to buy another Sofa, but it is Environmental loss, if they go for another, so they have first sell to students who really need of sofa and after that brought new sofa, so it is best example of protecting environment without buying green product. And they done same.

Best reasons to support each position is in both passage are related to protect environment and more consumption of product, as per Monica and Garrett both are doing or explaining same concept both think if we have to protect environment then we don't have to only use eco-friendly or green product also we have less consumption of other products, because it is also included some components of environment, that's why we have to divert this customer into green product and also another customer hove to convince decrease consumption of product.

it is best reason of both position if they have to give evidence, Garrett when decide to buy new Sofa but before, that she is sale their super to needy student, and after that she brought new so it is the best you Evidence of protect environment, and after that she got new sofa it is the best evidence of protect environment.,

I think both position are more convincing because in first position Monica tried to change consumer behaviour about consumption, she not only concentrate on only green product Demand increase, but she try to change mind of consumers about more consumption of non-green product, she think green product not only sufficient for protecting environment but also decrease consumption of existing other product is also beneficial for protecting environment, and in second position Garrett shown that if any customer have to buy a new product then first of all she or he has to sale out their existing product to needy person which will save environment or protect and they also buy same,

So both position of passage and their statement our convincing.