# FILE NAME: 00002233.soc
# TITLE: Should we spend more on protecting the environment? [12142ad8d38ef0a255f60eb9c20e626d]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. There are many ways in which we can be doing this. As it stands, the environment is being destroyed by humans, and as humans, we should all be doing what we can to fix it. We can all do our part – for example, recycling more, cutting down on our carbon footprint by buying things second hand, and reducing plastic use. However, the government must also be doing its part, and more funding is needed. The government needs to allocate money into specific areas which have been scientifically proven to make an impact. This funding cannot be at the expense of other services.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. There are many ways in which we can be doing this. As it stands, the environment is being destroyed by humans, and as humans, we should all be doing what we can to fix it. We can all do our part – for example, recycling more, cutting down on our carbon footprint by buying things second hand, and reducing plastic use. However, the government must also be doing its part, and more funding is needed. This funding must be allocated to specific areas which have been scientifically proven to make an impact. A non-experimental method to investigate whether or not the consensus statement was representative of all participants in the group is to ask each of them to rate their level of agreement with the consensus statement on a scale of 1 to 10. After the above consensus statement was reached, all participants were asked to rate their agreement with it, and they all rated it as a 10. This indicates that the consensus statement was representative of all participants in the group.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. There are many ways in which we can be doing this. Humans are destroying the environment and it is vital that we fix this. We can all do our bit – recycling, cutting down on plastic use, purchasing second hand products, and so on. The government should also be doing more, however, and this will require more funding. The funding must be allocated into important areas that will help with the environment. It is crucial that it is used wisely, not just ‘thrown’ into the environment but used in the right places. If both the public and the government work together to fix the environment, it has the potential to become better than ever.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. The environment is being damaged by humans, and as humans, we should all be doing what we can to fix it. We can all do our part – for example, recycling more, cutting down on our carbon footprint by buying things second hand, and reducing plastic use. However, the government also has a part to play, and more funding is needed.
1: 2,3,1,4
1: 1,3,2,4
1: 3,1,4,2
1: 1,3,4,2
1: 4,3,1,2