The Speech The passage below is from a speech delivered at an international summit on ocean conservation. Every minute, the equivalent of one rubbish truck ...

(a) Two consequences of ocean plastic pollution mentioned in the speech: [2 marks - 1 each]

• Coral reefs in the Pacific have declined by 40% since 1990, threatening marine biodiversity.
• The livelihoods of millions who depend on fishing and tourism are threatened.

Other acceptable answers include: environmental damage is disproportionately borne by small island nations. The question tests your ability to identify specific impacts stated in the source.

(b) Two different perspectives on the claim that wealthy nations "must accept greater responsibility": [6 marks - 3 per perspective: 1 for identifying the viewpoint, 2 for developing the reasoning]

Perspective 1 (supportive): Wealthy nations historically industrialised first and generated most of the world's plastic waste. Small island nations contribute less than 0.5% of global plastic production yet suffer disproportionate environmental damage. The principle of "polluter pays" holds that those who cause a problem have a moral obligation to fund its solution. These nations also have the financial resources and technological capacity to invest in coastal restoration and recycling infrastructure that developing countries lack.

Perspective 2 (critical): Placing all responsibility on wealthy nations ignores the growing contribution of rapidly industrialising countries (such as China, India, and parts of Southeast Asia) to plastic production. Requiring free technology transfer could undermine the incentive for companies to develop recycling innovations, since they could not recover research costs. Each nation should manage its own waste and develop domestic solutions. Additionally, framing the issue as purely a wealthy-nation problem may let other major polluters avoid accountability.

(c) Assessment of how effectively the speech uses evidence to persuade: [6 marks: 5-6 for balanced assessment with textual references; 3-4 for some relevant points; 1-2 for basic comments]

Effective uses of evidence:

• The "one rubbish truck per minute" comparison is vivid and memorable. It translates an abstract pollution problem into a concrete, visual image that audiences can immediately grasp. This is effective persuasion because it creates an emotional response.
• The 0.5% statistic highlights the injustice at the heart of the argument - it shows a stark disparity between contribution to the problem and experience of its consequences, making the call for wealthy-nation responsibility feel morally compelling.
• The 40% coral decline since 1990 is specific and measurable, lending the speech an evidence-based tone. A precise figure with a date range is more convincing than a vague claim about environmental damage.

Less effective aspects:

• "Justice demands" is emotional rhetoric, not evidence. While it is effective at rallying an audience that already sympathises, it does not provide proof or reasoning - it substitutes moral assertion for analysis.
• No sources are cited for any of the statistics. The audience cannot verify the rubbish-truck claim, the 0.5% figure, or the 40% coral decline. In academic or policy contexts, unsourced statistics weaken credibility.
• The speech does not address counterarguments or practical obstacles. It does not consider the cost of technology transfer, whether wealthy nations would agree, or how enforcement would work. A more persuasive argument would anticipate objections.
• The audience context matters: at an international summit on ocean conservation, attendees are likely already sympathetic. The speech is preaching to a receptive audience, which makes the persuasive task easier and the rhetoric less rigorously tested.