write a Final Academic Argument Essay of 2,000-2,500 words supporting or arguing against a law requiring consumers to pay a deposit of 5 or 10 cents per bottle on beverage containers.

Initiating the Final Academic Argument Essay Initiating the Final Academic Argument Directions: Before you begin, brainstorm the topic provided below and plan your argument, with ideas focused on supporting your claims with specifics. Read the SAMPLE SOURCES to learn a bit more about the topic. 3. Continue to plan your argument after perusing the provided sources. Though you could incorporate these into your Final Academic Argument Essay, these articles are only samples that cannot count toward your final paper’s total umber of sources (8). Next, begin an outline (following the argument pattern we’ve been using during this course) to see if your argument about beverage containers will hold water. You do not need to submit your outline, but having it drafted would help the approval of your A.S. 4. Search for articles to support your Argumentative Stance, then develop an Annotated Bibliography of sources that you will/might use. Do not include any of the SAMPLE SOURCES provided below in your AB2. For your Final Academic Argument Essay, six of the eight sources must be scholarly/ trade sources. Review the textbook’s explanation of these on page 628, in Chapter 22. Use APA format to document all sources used. ———— Final Academic Argument Essay Topic: The state of Michigan has a $0.10 can/bottle deposit added to sales of carbonated beverages (eg. a consumer purchasing a six-pack of bottled cola at $6.00 after tax needs to pay sixty cents more, or $6.60). Empty containers can be returned to the store to get a refund of $0.10 per can/bottle. Several other states in the USA have a $0.05 deposit (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Vermont). The state of New York has reported a 70-80% reduction in beverage container litter with a 30% overall litter reduction, while the state of California reported $200 million in unclaimed deposit funds. Opponents of added bottle deposits report negative ramifications in these laws, including excessive costs to businesses, inconveniences to consumers, and a potential loss of existing jobs. After considering the advantages and disadvantages of your state requiring a deposit to sales of all carbonated beverage containers, write a Final Academic Argument Essay of 2,000-2,500 words supporting or arguing against a law requiring consumers to pay a deposit of 5 or 10 cents per bottle on beverage containers. Arguments quasi-related to this topic will also be considered (ex.: raising the 10-cent deposit to $0.15 or more; adding “deposits” onto other purchases, and so on). To get started, read the following articles about this issue. SAMPLE SOURCE 1: Title: Uncapping the pros and cons of a bottle deposit program Author: University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center Source: The Abell Report Publication Date: March 2012 Number: 2 Page: 5 Volume: 25 Internet Database: Google Scholar Access Date: September 16, 2016 Document URL: http://smartgrowth.umd.edu/assets/efc/efc_deposit_program_summary.pdf “Revenue from unredeemed containers can reach the tens of millions of dollars, ranging from $1.2 million in Maine to approximately $200 million in California. Obviously, the level of unredeemed deposits is directly associated with the number of beverages purchased in the state; therefore, large states like California will have higher revenue levels. As stated previously, this revenue is impacted by the redemption rate itself. Therefore, states that provide less incentive for container return and have lower deposit levels will likely experience lower redemption rates and have higher unclaimed deposit revenue.” [page 4] “In most cases, these unclaimed funds that revert to the state are added to the general fund or are used to cover programmatic expenses. Michigan, for example, diverts 75 percent of unclaimed deposits to a Cleanup and Redevelopment Fund, which is spent on state environmental programs. Funds totaled $17.5 million in 2001, and more than $12 million in 2010. Having a specific funding mechanism in place has enabled the state to not only define how these dollars will be spent, but to also establish a nexus between what activities these funds are collected from and the purpose they serve when reinvested in the community.” [page 5]