2 thoughts on “RCL Blog Entry #4: The Inconvenience of Traffic in Los Angeles”
The title is relevant and self-explanatory, the arrangement pattern is clear. You present the issue, traffic, and the inconvenience/harms that come with it well. It’s good that you dig deep into the root causes of traffic while acknowledging current “solutions” and explaining why a new policy is necessary. Strengthening existing systems is always a more achievable, feasible way to move towards a solution, which is why I appreciate the idea you provided. You could strengthen your argument more by describing the positive environmental impact this policy could have (and list it as an incentive). There aren’t sources or infographics listed which is fine because this is just a draft.
The title of your issue brief sounds concise and right away highlights the topic of your writing. Your hook was very creative and a great way to segway into your thesis, which I believe was also well written and clear. There was definitely a good amount of evidence presented. To further strengthen your evidence and ethos as the author of the issue brief, I would suggest possibly finding articles about the traffic problem and including snippets or quotes from those experts. While I agree with the policy recommendation of extending the Los Angeles subway and refurbishing it, I would say that the feasibility of your second proposal is slightly lacking. Carpooling in itself has developed the reputation for being dangerous. Los Angeles is also a city with a known history for having a good amount of crime and known serial killers, so if carpooling is one of your proposed fixes to the problem, I would make sure to back up your idea with concrete evidence that it would be a safe alternative to driving. No infographics or citations were included in this particular post, but since this is the first draft I’m sure they will be included later.
The title is relevant and self-explanatory, the arrangement pattern is clear. You present the issue, traffic, and the inconvenience/harms that come with it well. It’s good that you dig deep into the root causes of traffic while acknowledging current “solutions” and explaining why a new policy is necessary. Strengthening existing systems is always a more achievable, feasible way to move towards a solution, which is why I appreciate the idea you provided. You could strengthen your argument more by describing the positive environmental impact this policy could have (and list it as an incentive). There aren’t sources or infographics listed which is fine because this is just a draft.
The title of your issue brief sounds concise and right away highlights the topic of your writing. Your hook was very creative and a great way to segway into your thesis, which I believe was also well written and clear. There was definitely a good amount of evidence presented. To further strengthen your evidence and ethos as the author of the issue brief, I would suggest possibly finding articles about the traffic problem and including snippets or quotes from those experts. While I agree with the policy recommendation of extending the Los Angeles subway and refurbishing it, I would say that the feasibility of your second proposal is slightly lacking. Carpooling in itself has developed the reputation for being dangerous. Los Angeles is also a city with a known history for having a good amount of crime and known serial killers, so if carpooling is one of your proposed fixes to the problem, I would make sure to back up your idea with concrete evidence that it would be a safe alternative to driving. No infographics or citations were included in this particular post, but since this is the first draft I’m sure they will be included later.