Recycling Benefits the Economy and Creates (3) JobsWhat Is the.docx

Recycling Benefits the Economy and Creates (3) Jobs
What Is the Impact of Green Practices?, 2016
From Opposing Viewpoints in Context
Listen
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Neil Seldman is president of the Institute for Local Self-
Reliance in Washington, DC, a nonprofit advocacy group that
helps communities find local solutions for sustainable
development.
The US recycling industry has generated more than a million
jobs—a figure that is expected to double as the demand
for recycled materials continues to grow in the industrial and
agricultural sectors. A wide variety of recycling, refurbishing,
and repurposing programs across the country not only create
jobs but also save taxpayers money and generate other
significant economic benefits for local communities. One in
particular, the privately owned building-materials salvage
company Urban Ore in Berkeley, California, has redefined what
is possible in the reclamation industry and has become a model
for reuse stores around the world.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. recycling movement
benefitted from the decentralized nature of our government.
With 10,000 local governments each in charge of their own
solid waste, it was possible for experimentation and sharing
successful approaches across the country. Today in the midst of
the Great Recession [2012], decentralized recycling is proving
its worth to the country once again. The recycling industry has
created well over 1 million jobs and is projected to add another
million jobs as recycling levels continue to divert more and
more material to industry and agriculture. The level of
experimentation continues. The following stories introduce just

a fraction of the new job creating and job sustaining endeavors
from around the U.S.
In Bridgeport, Connecticut, a mattress recycling and
refurbishing enterprise started up in late June [2012]. Twenty
workers will process 100,000 mattresses and box springs
annually. This will reduce transfer station and landfill costs,
while making good end products available to consumers at
pennies on the dollar compared to new mattresses from formal
retail stores. The plant is owned by the Greater Bridgeport
Community Development Corporation, which used a $100,000
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to leverage
additional capital.
Austin [Texas] just released an extraordinary business plan for
resource recovery that will guide the city to 90 percent
diversion of discarded materials by 2020.
Model Programs
An array of refurbishing operations in Eugene, Oregon—
including mattresses, automobiles, appliances, computers and
furniture—sell through 11 outlet stores run by Saint Vincent de
Paul (SVDP). It is estimated these operations have helped lower
the cost of living in Eugene by 3 percent. SVDP's total
operations employ over 400 workers at living wages plus health
insurance. SVDP also manufacturers products made from
window glass and fire starters made from old crayons. Since the
great recession of 2008, SVDP has hired over 100 new workers
and raised wages.
In Reading, Pennsylvania, the new administration has hired its
own workers at union wage and benefit levels to manage the
city's recycling program. There are 10 new jobs and the city is
expecting to save $300,000. Further, by controlling its own
materials, Reading can direct these resources to companies that
will locate manufacturing plants in the city. Reading will be the
site of the first U.S. plant that uses 40 tons/day recycled high
grade paper and recycled cotton to produce stationery, copy
paper, envelopes and

file folders for local and regional markets. The Greys
Paper Recycling Industries plant will create 100 jobs at
$14/hour, plus an additional 20 jobs in distribution and
warehousing.
United Community Services, the city's workforce development
agent, will identify, screen and recruit workers. Mayor Vaughn
Spencer is introducing additional creative ways to use raw
available materials for sustainable economic growth.
In Alachua County, Florida, a 40-acre Resource Recovery Park
has been created for recycling and composting companies.
Similarly, an industrial park for these types of companies is
being developed in Austin, Texas. Austin just released an
extraordinary business plan for resource recovery that will
guide the city to 90 percent diversion of discarded materials by
2020. The report will save cities seeking to replicate these goals
hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees.
Urban Agriculture
In Poughkeepsie, New York, the city is providing 4 acres to
Greenway, Inc., a composting company, which will create the
foundation for an intensive urban agriculture sector. Urban
agriculture is essential for sustainable cities. David Crockett,
director of the Office of Sustainability in Chattanooga, reports
that if just 10 percent of the food eaten in the city were grown
in the city, it would make a $1 billion impact on the local
economy.
Urban Ore has served as a model for large and small reuse
stores all over the world.
In Atlanta, urban agriculture is making considerable progress.
Biponica, Inc. has produced two grow facilities at Park
Department outdoor centers which grow fish using algae and
duck weed as feed, and vegetables from the nutrients in fish
excretions. Elemental Impact has established the downtown
Zero Waste Zone to segregate organic waste for composting.
This also makes it easier to recycle nonorganic discarded
materials. Elemental Impact is also working with the city's
airport, the busiest in the U.S., to capture back of the house and

concourse organic waste, as well as the plastic packages used to
deliver food to the facility. Elemental Impact is now working
closely with the National Restaurant Association to establish
these zones in many U.S. cities.
Reuse and Niche Recycling
The Benefits of Vaccination Outweigh the Risks
(2)
Vaccines, 2015
Listen
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Vaccine Education
Center seeks to provide information about vaccines and
the diseases they prevent to parents and healthcare
professionals.
Although no vaccine is completely harmless, vaccines do
protect people from the real danger of disease.
The vaccines against hepatitis B, pertussis, pneumococcal
disease, and rotavirus all have the possibility of certain side
effects, but the harms of disease prevented by
the vaccines outweigh the risk of any adverse effects. There are
systems in place to protect against side effects and vaccines are
only given to children after a long approval process.
The first definition of the word safe is "harmless." This
definition would imply that any negative consequence of
a vaccine would make the vaccine unsafe. Using this definition,
no vaccine is 100 percent safe. Almost all vaccines can cause
pain, redness or tenderness at the site of injection. And
some vaccines cause more severe side effects. For example, the
pertussis (or whooping cough) vaccine can cause persistent,
inconsolable crying, high fever or seizures associated with

fever. Although none of these severe symptoms result in
permanent damage, they can be quite frightening to parents.
But, in truth, few things meet the definition of "harmless." Even
everyday activities contain hidden dangers. For example, every
year in the United States, 350 people are killed in bath- or
shower-related accidents, 200 people are killed when food
lodges in their windpipe, and 100 people are struck and killed
by lightning. However, few of us consider eating solid food,
taking a bath, or walking outside on a rainy day as unsafe
activities. We just figure that the benefits of the activity clearly
outweigh the risks.
The second definition of the word safe is "having been
preserved from a real danger." Using this definition, the danger
(the disease) must be significantly greater than the means of
protecting against the danger (the vaccine). Or, said another
way, a vaccine's benefits must clearly and definitively outweigh
its risks.
To better understand the definition of the word safe when
applied to vaccines, let's examine four different vaccines and
the diseases they prevent:
The Safety of the Hepatitis B Vaccine
The hepatitis B vaccine has few side effects. However, one side
effect is serious. About one of every 600,000 doses of hepatitis
B vaccine is complicated by a severe allergic reaction called
anaphylaxis. The symptoms of anaphylaxis are hives, difficulty
breathing and a drop in blood pressure. Although no one has
ever died because of the hepatitis B vaccine, the symptoms of
anaphylaxis caused by the vaccine can be quite frightening.
Because the benefits of the hepatitis B vaccine clearly and
definitively outweigh its risks, the hepatitis B vaccine is safe.
On the other hand, every year about 5,000 people die soon after
being infected with hepatitis B virus. In addition, about 10,000
people every year suffer severe liver damage (called cirrhosis)
or liver cancer caused by hepatitis B virus. People are much
more likely to develop these severe and often fatal
consequences of hepatitis B virus infection if they get infected

when they are very young children. For this reason, the hepatitis
B vaccine is recommended for newborns.
Some parents wonder whether it is necessary to give the
hepatitis B virus vaccine to newborns. They ask: "How is a baby
going to catch hepatitis B?" But, before the hepatitis B
virus vaccine, every year in the
United States about 18,000 children less than 10 years of age
caught hepatitis B virus from someone other than their mother.
Some children catch it from another family member, and some
children catch it from someone outside the home who comes in
contact with the baby. About 1 million people in the United
States are infected with hepatitis B virus. However, because
hepatitis B virus can cause a silent infection (meaning without
obvious symptoms), many people who are infected with
hepatitis B virus don't know that they have it! So it can be hard
to tell from whom you could catch hepatitis B virus. Worse yet,
many people don't realize that you can catch hepatitis B virus
after coming into contact with minute quantities of blood
through casual contact with someone who is infected (for
example, sharing washcloths or toothbrushes). In fact, a
milliliter of blood (about one-fifth of a teaspoon) from someone
who is infected can contain as many as one billion infectious
viruses, so people can be infected with quantities of infected
blood small enough that they are not visible to the naked eye.
Because the benefits of the hepatitis B vaccine clearly and
definitively outweigh its risks, the hepatitis B vaccine is safe.
The Safety of the Pertussis Vaccine
The old pertussis vaccine had far more risks than the hepatitis
B vaccine. The old pertussis vaccine was called the "whole-
cell" vaccine and had a high rate of severe side effects.
Persistent, inconsolable crying occurred in one of every 100
doses, fever greater than 105 degrees occurred in one of every
330 doses, and seizures with fever occurred in one of every
1,750 doses. Due to negative publicity related to this vaccine,
its use decreased in many areas of the world.

For example, the Japanese Ministry of Health decided to stop
using the pertussis vaccine in 1975. In the three years before
the vaccine was discontinued, there were 400 cases of pertussis
and 10 deaths from pertussis in Japan. In the three years after
the pertussis vaccine was discontinued, there were 13,000 cases
of pertussis and 113 deaths! It should be noted that although the
side effects of the pertussis vaccine were high, children didn't
die from pertussis vaccine; however, they did die from pertussis
infection. The Japanese Ministry of Health, realizing how costly
their error had been, soon reinstituted the use of
pertussis vaccine.
The children of Japan proved that, despite the side effects, the
benefits of the old pertussis vaccine clearly outweighed the
risks.
Scientific progress eventually led to the creation of another
version of the pertussis vaccine. Known as the "acellular"
pertussis vaccine, it was more purified, so instead of containing
about 3,000 immunogenic proteins, it only contained two to five
proteins. The ("acellular") pertussis vaccine became available in
the United States in 1996. Children who received
this vaccine had a much lower risk of severe side effects than
those who received the old "whole-cell" vaccine. Therefore, the
new pertussis vaccine is safer than the old pertussis vaccine.
But because the benefits of the old pertussis vaccine outweighed
its risks, it too was safe.
The Safety of the Pneumococcal Vaccine
Let's take a look at the pneumococcal vaccine. The
pneumococcal vaccine was licensed in the United States in the
year 2000 and was recommended for use in all children less
than 5 years of age. Some parents chose to take a "wait-and-see"
attitude. They reasoned that because the problems with the
rotavirus vaccine were not revealed until the vaccine was given
to 1 million children, why not wait and see what happened after
the pneumococcal vaccine was given to several million or more
children.
The first rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn from use because of a

problem with safety.
However, the choice not to give the pneumococcal vaccine was
not a risk-free choice. Before pneumococcal vaccine was first
given to infants in 2000, every year in the United States about
700 children (less than 5 years old) got meningitis, 17,000 got
bloodstream infections, and 71,000 got pneumonia from
pneumococcus. So the choice not to give a
pneumococcal vaccine was a choice to risk the severe, often
permanent, and occasionally fatal consequences of
pneumococcal infection. Parents should be reassured by two
facts. First, the pneumococcal vaccine was tested in about
20,000 children before it was licensed for use. Second,
the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine is made in a
manner almost identical to the pneumococcal vaccine and has
been given safely to millions of children since 1990.
The Safety of the Rotavirus Vaccine
A new rotavirus vaccine was recommended for use in February
2006. This vaccine was tested in more than 70,000 infants.
About half of the children received vaccine and the other half
received a salt water solution. This large study showed
the vaccine to be safe. Children who received the vaccine were
not more likely to experience vomiting, diarrhea, fever,
irritability or poor feeding than children who did not receive
the vaccine.
The first rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn from use because of a
problem with safety. The vaccine was found to cause a rare, but
potentially very serious, side effect called intussusception.
Intussusception occurs when one section of the small intestine
folds into another section of the intestine. When this happens,
the intestine can become blocked. Intussusception is a medical
emergency, and children can die from the disease. The
rotavirus vaccine was given to about 1 million children in the
United States between 1998 and 1999. About one of every
10,000 children who were given the vaccine got intussusception
(a total of about 100 children), and one child died because of

the vaccine.
Because of the problem with intussusception in the
previous vaccine, any new rotavirus vaccine had to be evaluated
for this potential side effect as well. There are currently two
rotavirus vaccines available in the U.S. Studies have shown that
children who receive either of the rotavirus vaccines are no
more likely to experience intussusception than those who did
not receive the vaccine. Intussusception occurs naturally in
about 1 of every 100,000 infants.
Systems in Place to Protect Against Side Effects
The previous rotavirus vaccine is an example of how rare side
effects can be detected quickly. The rotavirus vaccine was
tested in about 11,000 children before it was submitted to the
FDA [US Food and Drug Administration] for licensure. After
the vaccine was licensed and recommended for use,
the vaccine was given to about 1 million children.
A system called the Vaccines Adverse Event Reporting System
(VAERS) initially found about 15 cases of an intestinal
blockage called intussusception soon after administration of
the vaccine. This was worrisome enough to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to cause them to
temporarily suspend use of the rotavirus vaccine until it could
be determined whether the vaccine did, in fact, cause
intussusception. Their analysis showed that intussusception
occurred in about one of every 10,000 children who received
the vaccine. Because only 11,000 children were tested before
the vaccine was licensed, it was really not possible to pick up
such a rare side effect. The result of the
rotavirus vaccine experience is that at least 60,000 children had
to be tested before the next vaccine was licensed.
Several other systems of study to understand the rate
of vaccine side effects, such as the Vaccine Safety Data Link
(VSD), are also available. The VSD also allows one to
determine the background rate of side effects, meaning the rate
of adverse events in children who don't receive a vaccine. So, in
many ways, systems like the Vaccine Safety Data Link are

better than VAERS because they allow one to determine
whether a particular vaccine is the cause of a rare side effect.
Trials can take years, giving companies ample time to provide
the FDA with proof of long-term safety and effectiveness.
The Licensure of New Vaccines
Vaccines are only given to children after a long and careful
review by a number of different groups. These different groups
either: license, recommend or require vaccines.
The first of three processes, licensure, involves gaining
approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As a
result, it is the longest of these processes. It can take years,
even decades, before pharmaceutical companies can actually
start providing the vaccine. For example, the varicella [chicken
pox] vaccine took about 11 years to be licensed by the FDA.
Vaccines are usually made by first showing that they are safe
and effective in experimental animals. Once this is established,
the vaccine becomes an Investigational New Drug (IND) and the
company is given an IND license to further study the safety and
effectiveness of the vaccine in adults, and eventually, children.
Again, these trials can take years, giving companies ample time
to provide the FDA with proof of long-term safety and
effectiveness.
The Recommendation Process
The "recommendation" process begins only after a vaccine is
licensed by the FDA. Doctors don't just decide to start giving
the vaccine on their own. They seek the recommendations of the
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which
is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), the Committee on Infectious Diseases of the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American Academy of
Family Physicians (AAFP).
While the FDA licensure process involves determining the risks
versus the benefits of a particular vaccine, the recommendation
process considers the costs versus the benefits. Here's the
distinction:
· The FDA examines vaccine safety by considering whether

there are any risks (negative effects) associated with
the vaccine. They ask: "Do these risks outweigh the benefits of
the vaccine or vice versa?"
· In addition to considering the risks and benefits of a vaccine,
the ACIP, AAP and AAFP also examine the costs associated
with immunizing all or just a segment of the population. For
instance, with the chickenpox (varicella) vaccine: What is the
cost of immunizing children compared with the potential
savings in medical and non-medical costs from immunizing
them? (An example of non-medical costs would be money lost
by parents who miss work taking care of their unvaccinated
child.)
· Another part of the recommendation process is determining
which groups of people within the population would benefit
from the vaccine, and on what schedule the vaccine should be
given based on data previously presented to the FDA.
Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single natural
infection, immunity from vaccines usually occurs only after
several doses.
Just because a vaccine is recommended for use doesn't mean
that it is required for use. State legislatures and health
departments determine whether a vaccine is required. They
examine the practicality of requiring it for every child within
the state. Factored into this equation is whether a local or state
government can afford to pay for the vaccines of children whose
parents can't afford it.
The Need for Vaccines
Middle class muddle (1)
Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 2016

Listen
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
The fate of the US middle class has taken center stage |in
political and economic discussions. Donald Trump promises to
bring back the well-paying jobs that he says were lost to foreign
countries because of misguided federal regulations and trade
policies. Hillary Clinton has joined Trump in expressing her
doubts about the impact of trade agreements--"I will stop any
trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the
Trans-Pacific Partnership"--but she also acknowledges the need
to provide the education and training necessary to qualify more
Americans for the jobs of the future.
Speaking at the Center for American Progress on September 8,
Vice President Biden quoted the Irish poet William Butler Yeats
in describing the evolving labor market: "All is changed,
changed utterly." Biden added that one of the few things about
which Democrats and Republicans agree is that twelve years of
education is no longer sufficient preparation for the demands of
the labor market. He added that workers need not only better
workplace skills but also a better understanding of what
employers expect, where the good jobs are, and how to apply
for them.
Politicians not surprisingly look for political explanations for
problems. Economists take a different view. Speaking on a
panel following Bidens speech, Princeton University economist
Alan Blinder observed that the growing disparity in wages
between the affluent and the middle class is a result of market
forces, not government policy. He added, however, that the
government could be doing more to offset the impact of the
wage gap through tax policy and other measures. He added that
government spending on infrastructure, education, and training
could benefit the middle class in general by stimulating the
economy and help individuals acquire the skills necessary to
prosper in a changing labor market.
The prospects for the middle class are further dimmed by a

decline in the rate of productivity growth. When productivity
growth lags, the economic pie grows more slowly, and the
competition for the slices of the pie becomes more intense. The
day after Biden's speech, the Brookings Institution hosted a
conference on the "productivity puzzle" to discuss what is
behind lagging productivity growth and how to revive it.
Martin Baily of Brookings presented an overview of trends in
productivity and an analysis of the factors that contribute to
growth. Analysis of the periods of rapid productivity growth
(1948-1973 and 1995-2004) reveal that the most important
contributing factor was multifactor productivity, which consists
of improvements in technology, better organization of
production, and higher-value products and services. Capital
deepening was of somewhat smaller importance, and the labor
composition (the education and experience of the workforce)
made a relatively small contribution.
At first glance this would indicate that investments in worker
skills would not have a significant effect on economic
productivity, but Bailey argued that in this case the data might
be misleading. He pointed out that a large gap exists between
the performance of the most and least productive US firms and
industries. He proposes that one explanation for this gap could
be the lack of depth in the skills of workers and managers. This
would explain why companies that can see how their industry
leaders have boosted productivity are unable to implement the
same techniques themselves. Advanced technology and
managerial methods might require a higher level of skill
throughout the workforce in order to be implemented
effectively.
Emerita Berkeley professor Bronwyn Hall observed that one
reason that labor composition has not made a major contribution
to productivity growth is that we have not seen a large
improvement in worker skills. She argues that until we make a
serious effort to enhance skills across the workforce, we will
not know whether it will have an appreciable effect on

productivity growth.
Harvard's Robert Barro mused about the anomalies of the feeble
recovery that has occurred since the recession that began around
2008. Many economists worried that the recovery would
produce little job growth because companies would implement
productivity-enhancing measures rather than simply hire back
workers. But there has been relatively low productivity growth
and a healthy rate of hiring. Barro characterizes it as a "job-
filled non-recovery."
The experts at the Brookings event were judiciously reluctant to
make predictions about the future rate of productivity growth.
The loose consensus was that a return to the postwar boom
years is unlikely but that the very gloomy outlook of
Northwestern University's Robert Gordon is probably too dire.
So if we are heading into a period of middling productivity
growth, that is not an encouraging prospect for the middle class
workers who have seen their incomes stagnate. And if there will
be no supercharged economy to come to their rescue, we need to
look elsewhere for actions that will brighten their prospects.
A few days after the Brookings meeting, the Census Bureau
released the encouraging news that US median household
income increased by 5.2% in 2015, which was the first real
increase since 2007. And whereas most of the financial gain in
the early stages of the recovery was captured by the wealthy,
the data show that households on all steps of the economic
ladder had benefited. This is clearly welcome news, but it must
be understood in context. The 2015 median of $56,500 is still
1.6% below the 2007 median and 2.4% below the 1999 median.
Rising employment levels are the key to the 2015 gains, but this
does not address the long-term need for productivity growth that
will be essential for future gains.
In searching for answers to the plight of the middle class, many
of the experts mentioned education and training. They observed
that the nature of work is changing in virtually every sector of
the economy and that the skills employers are seeking are also
in flux. This presents a challenge for young people eager to

acquire desired skills as well as for current workers who have
well-rewarded skills that could easily become obsolete.
The United States is doing too little to address this challenge. It
spends less than 0.05% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on
vocational training, a far lower percentage than is found in most
developed countries. Finland and Denmark spend about 0.5% of
GDP, more than ten times the US rate, and France and Germany
spend five times as much. The nation needs to devote more
attention to developing the skills that will be required to earn an
adequate middle-class living in a technologically advanced
economy and to create the high-quality labor force that make a
significant contribution to boosting economic productivity.
The first task is to identify the skills and the jobs that need
attention, and the four articles that follow make an important
start. They include an overview of the many parts of the
economy where technical skills are becoming ever more
necessary; a closer look at the ways that computing and
information technology are transforming job requirements; a
deep dive into the rapidly evolving health care industry; and a
call for better information to help workers identify training,
education, and job opportunities, and to enable policymakers
identify the areas where government actions are needed.
To maintain the reality of the American dream, the United
States needs to ensure that it provides the educational and
training opportunities that its citizens can use to build
rewarding careers. But the development of worker skills can do
more than contribute to the economic well-being of the middle
class. For reasons that we do not fully understand, advances in
technology are not resulting in the same spur to productivity
growth that they did in the past. It could be that worker skills,
which were not a major factor in previous productivity spurts,
are the missing ingredient that will complete the recipe for
future productivity gains.
Finneran, Kevin
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2016 National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.nationalacademies.org

Source Citation
· the Opposing Viewpoints database and click here to access the
page where the Academic Search Complete database is found.
· At least one of your three sources should present
a counterargument*, a position an opponent of your argument
might make.
· Be sure to test all of your sources using the C.R.A.A.P.
method.
Constructing Your Annotations
As you work on your annotations, remember to refer to
the assignment guidelines and rubric (click here) to make sure
you're fulfilling each aspect of the assignment. You can
also download/print the rubric.
Your responses will be saved to the Notebook, which can be
found under the "Course Tools" menu. You can also download
all of your responses to a single Word document by following
the directions at the bottom of this page.
Click on each of the following tabs to begin building your
annotations for your three sources.
Source #1
Source #2
Source #3
Submitting Your Annotations
Now that you have answered all of the questions above, click on
the "Download Word Document" link below. When you open the
Word document, you will see all of your responses from the
questions above saved and collated in the document

Source #1
Step 1: Select a source from the Opposing Viewpoints database.
Step 2: Apply the C.R.A.A.P test to the source to determine if it
is credible and reliable. Click here to download a copy of The
C.R.A.A.P. Test Worksheet. Remember, credible sources should
score 35 points or more on the test.
The next activity uses a rich text area. You can tab to the editor
body. Press ALT-F10 to get to the toolbar. Press ESC to return
to the editor body. A save button is available in the top toolbar
all the way to the right and will become visible when it receives
focus.
Step 3: Identify your source in the box below. Step 4: Fill in the
blanks below to generate the summary portion of your
bibliography entry. Type the completed sentences into the
textboxes.
It seems this source is arguing ____________________.
This source is using this evidence to support that argument:
____________________.
Step 5: Fill in the blank below to generate the credibility
portion of your bibliography entry. Type the completed sentence
into the textbox.
Personally, I believe (the source is doing a good job/bad job of
supporting its arguments and why) ____________________.
Step 6: Fill in the blanks below to generate the relevance
portion of your bibliography entry. Type the completed
sentences into the textboxes.
My problem is ________________________.
This is my intended argument: ________________________.

I think this source will be very helpful in supporting my
argument because ________________________.
I think this source will support my other sources because
________________________. Source #2
focus.
Step 3: Identify your source in the box below.
Step 4: Fill in the blanks below to generate the summary
____________________.
into the textbox.
Step 6: Fill in the blanks below to generate the relevance
My problem is ________________________.
________________________.

Source #3
focus. Step 3: Identify your source in the box below.
Step 4: Fill in the blanks below to generate the summary portion
of your bibliography entry. Type the completed sentences into
the textboxes.
into the textbox.
____________________. Step 6: Fill in the blanks below to
generate the relevance portion of your bibliography entry. Type
the completed sentences into the textboxes.
My problem is ________________________.
________________________.
Top of Form

Recycling Benefits the Economy and Creates (3) JobsWhat Is the.docx

Recycling Benefits the Economy and Creates (3) JobsWhat Is the.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from sodhi3

More from sodhi3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Recycling Benefits the Economy and Creates (3) JobsWhat Is the.docx