Editorial comment by AYH: This article is a discussion of the impact of plastic pollution on the environment, and the kinds of steps countries like Canada should or should not take to reduce it. On the surface, it's a persuasive-looking article because of the way that it seems to use logical reasoning, by pointing to evidence in support of most of its claims - often external evidence from fairly authoritative sources. However, there are several places where the evidence cited by the author doesn't seem to support the claim the author is making, or where the author makes comparisons between situations that aren't necessarily comparable. Sometimes the author seems to be motivated by an assumption and seems to be manipulating his evidence to support that assumption. I'd like to see you criticize the author's reasoning: What evidence does he provide for each of the claims he makes, and why isn't this evidence always sufficient to support those claims and make them convincing? Which claims are poorly supported in this way? Good luck! -AYH