Passage Excerpt from “The World Has an E-Waste Problem”
Excerpt from “The World Has an E-Waste Problem”
by Alana Semuels
As a tech-hungry nation . . . gets ready to upgrade to the next generation of lightning-fast 5G devices, there is a surprising environmental cost to be reckoned with: a fresh mountain of obsolete1 gadgets. About 6 million pounds of discarded electronics are already processed monthly at recycling giant ERI’s Fresno plant. Pallets2 of once beloved but now outdated devices . . . arrive here daily. Workers with hammers hack at the bulkiest devices, while others remove dangerous components like lithium-ion batteries. The scene is like a twisted . . . movie, with doomed gadgets riding an unrelenting conveyor belt into a machine that shreds them into piles of copper, aluminum and steel.
“In our society, we always have to have the new, best product,” said Aaron Blum, the co-founder and chief operating officer of ERI, on a tour of the facility. Americans spent $71 billion on telephone and communication equipment in 2017, nearly five times what they spent in 2010 even when adjusted for inflation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. . . . When we buy something new, we get rid of what’s old. That cycle of consumption has made electronics waste the world’s fastest-growing solid-waste stream.
That stream is expected to turn into a torrent3 as the world upgrades to 5G, the next big step in wireless technology. 5G promises faster speeds and other benefits. But experts say it will also result in a dramatic increase in e-waste, as millions of smartphones, modems and other gadgets incompatible with 5G networks are made obsolete. “I don’t think people understand the magnitude of the transition,” says ERI co-founder and executive chairman John Shegerian. “This is bigger than the change of black-and-white to color, bigger than analog to digital, by many multitudes.”
. . . Less than a quarter of all U.S. electronic waste is recycled, according to a United Nations estimate. The rest is incinerated or ends up in landfills. That’s bad news, as e-waste can contain harmful materials like mercury and beryllium that pose environmental risks.
Part of the problem is regulatory. Only 19 states have laws banning electronics from the regular trash. In states without such rules, like Nevada, electronics often end up in garbage and recycling bins, said Jeremy Walters, a community-relations manager for waste collector Republic Services. Environmental concerns aside, compacting flammable lithium-ion batteries with paper recycling can be dangerous; recycling centers have reported an uptick in fires.
Even when e-waste rules exist, it’s left up to consumers to handle their old devices properly. But recycling them can be a pain. Rather than just drop a used phone in a bin outside their homes, lots of people have to take their electronics to a store, which may pay them for it but could also charge them to get rid of it. Many consumers, paralyzed by the hassle or put off by the expense, simply throw their devices into the trash or stash them in a drawer, hoping they’ll just disappear. “We don’t necessarily have the measures to make sure people aren’t throwing it away,” Walters said.
One solution is to make electronics last as long as they once did. At ERI’s facility, Shegerian showed TIME [magazine] dozens of televisions from the 1970s and 1980s that stopped working only recently. Yet instead, technology companies are speeding the pace of obsolescence. Most smartphone batteries can’t be easily replaced when they stop holding a charge, new laptops don’t accept old cables, and software companies push upgrades that won’t run on old devices. “Our products today don’t last as long as they used to, and it’s a strategy by manufacturers to force us into shorter and shorter upgrade cycles,” said Kyle Wiens, the founder of iFixit, which publishes do-it-yourself repair guides. . . .
Some environmental groups say multibillion-dollar companies . . . should pick up the cost of recycling the devices they sell. Lawmakers in parts of Europe and Canada and in some U.S. states have passed so-called Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, which require manufacturers to establish and fund systems to recycle or collect obsolete products. . . .
. . . Some companies are increasing their recycling efforts on their own, whether for the economic benefit or the public relations boost.
From “The World Has an E-Waste Problem” by Alana Semuels from TIME Magazine, June 3, 2019. Copyright © 2019 TIME USA, LLC.
Electronics such as smartphones, computers, cameras, and large appliances contain toxins like lead, chromium, zinc, nickel, mercury, beryllium, and cadmium. These substances are bioaccumulative, which means that they accumulate over time in living organisms.
1obsolete: outdated and no longer useful
2Pallets: wooden platforms used to store or transport materials in a warehouse
3torrent: an outpouring
Question
The idea that e-waste regulations can be ineffective is conveyed in the excerpt through
- Aa statistic indicating that only a few states have chosen to adopt e-waste regulations.
- Ban observation about typical consumer behavior in response to e-waste regulations.
- Can acknowledgment that electronics stores sometimes profit from e-waste regulations.
- Da comment that manufacturers are making an effort to recycle even without e-waste regulations.
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The question asks how a point about the ineffectiveness of e-waste regulations is conveyed in the excerpt.
A. Incorrect. Paragraph 5 indicates that “only 19 states have laws banning electronics from the regular trash,” but this statistic does not reveal how effective or ineffective these regulations are.
B. CORRECT. Paragraph 6 explains that “even when e-waste rules exist,” it is possible consumers will not follow them, because they have to return their electronics to a store and could be charged. Because it is such a “hassle,” they will “simply throw their devices into the trash or stash them in a drawer, hoping they’ll just disappear” (paragraph 6).
C. Incorrect. While stores may charge people “to get rid of” old devices (paragraph 6), the fee will simply cover expenses incurred by the store to properly dispose of the devices. Stores could actually succeed in getting some devices recycled appropriately, but overall, the excerpt states that consumers’ frustration over the process means most are discarded improperly (paragraph 6).
D. Incorrect. Paragraph 9 explains that “some companies are increasing their recycling efforts on their own,” but this does not mean that regulations are ineffective, only that some manufacturers are taking action even without regulations.
Question analysis
This evidence question on “The World Has an E-Waste Problem” asks how the article gets across the idea that e-waste regulations can be ineffective. The choices describe kinds of support, a statistic, an observation, an acknowledgment and a comment, so students must find the detail each one refers to and judge what that detail really shows about the rules.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Matching an idea to the evidence for it is regular grade 7 work, but these choices describe evidence in general terms, so students must locate each detail across several paragraphs and judge what it shows about regulations.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- Evidence in several places moderate
- Reading between the lines minor
- The right answer is reworded minor
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 10, 760 words; question and choices: about grade 13, 63 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The idea to support is narrow: rules that exist but do not work. The statistic about 19 states is the main trap, because paragraph 5 opens “Part of the problem is regulatory,” and few rules can feel the same as weak rules. Students who separate how many states have rules from whether the rules change behavior land on paragraph 6, where people living under rules still throw devices away.
Evidence in several places moderate Working it out
The choices name kinds of evidence, not places, so each must be traced: the 19 states to paragraph 5, the consumers and the stores to paragraph 6, the voluntary recycling to paragraph 9. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Reading between the lines minor Working it out
No sentence says the rules fail; students must connect “Even when e-waste rules exist” with consumers who “simply throw their devices into the trash” and Walters’s admission that nothing stops them. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer
The right choice calls paragraph 6 “an observation about typical consumer behavior,” while two wrong ones restate “Only 19 states” and companies recycling “on their own” almost word for word. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Strategy: Find the passage detail behind each choice, then ask whether it shows regulations failing to work, rather than something else about regulations or about e-waste.
Traps
- Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
- Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
The wrong answers, classified
A Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Reads “Only 19 states” under “Part of the problem is regulatory” as proof that the rules fail, but the figure shows how few states have rules, not how well they work.
C Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Takes paragraph 6’s store that “could also charge them to get rid of it” as stores profiting from the rules, a gain the excerpt never mentions.
D True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Recalls companies recycling “on their own” in paragraph 9, an accurate detail that mentions regulation, but voluntary effort says nothing about whether existing rules work.
Working it out, step by step
Pin down the idea
This asks how the excerpt shows that e-waste rules can be ineffective. Ineffective means not working. So you need evidence about rules that exist but still don’t do their job. Having too few rules is a different problem.
Trace each choice to a paragraph
Each choice names a kind of detail, not a place. So first find where each one comes from.
- A: the 19 states, in paragraph 5.
- B: what consumers do, in paragraph 6.
- C: the stores that take old devices, also in paragraph 6.
- D: companies recycling without being told to, in paragraph 9.
Read paragraph 6 closely
Paragraph 6 begins, “Even when e-waste rules exist.” So it is about places that have rules. Recycling there still takes work. Many people “simply throw their devices into the trash or stash them in a drawer, hoping they’ll just disappear.” Jeremy Walters adds, “We don’t necessarily have the measures to make sure people aren’t throwing it away.” The rules are there, but people get around them.
Check the choices
- A does not fit. “Only 19 states” tells how many states have rules. It does not tell how well those rules work.
- B fits. It describes what people usually do, even under the rules.
- C does not fit. A store “could also charge them to get rid of it.” The excerpt never says stores make a profit. The fee is just one reason people skip recycling.
- D does not fit. Companies acting by choice is a real detail. But it says nothing about whether existing rules work.
Name the answer
Watch out: A is tempting because paragraph 5 starts, “Part of the problem is regulatory.” But few rules is not the same as weak rules. So the answer is B.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A is the closest wrong choice, since the 19 states do point to a problem with rules. But that problem is how many states have them. B shows rules failing where they already exist. People who live under them still toss devices in the trash, and little stops them.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Excerpt from “The World Has an E-Waste Problem”” as printed (pages 164–166)
