See comments in brackets within the text and see general comments below text.
Final Draft
Essay 4
[TITLE?}
When my parents were growing up, cars were far less efficient than they are in today’s world. To be statistical, they are 95% more efficient today than they were 30 years ago (Wilson). The statistic raises doubt on the long standing assertion that public transportation is in some way more efficient than private transportation. That, however, is not enough reason for many to believe in a car’s supremacy to public transportation. Cars have proven, as of late, that in every year we’ve had them there [SP] production has improved while the bad aspects credited to them have declined. Cars make for a far better transportation method than mass transport in the suburbs due to their dependability and accessibility. [CLEAR THESIS, BUT IS IT REALLY ARGUABLE? TRY TO INCLUDE MORE SPECIFICS IN YOUR LEAD-IN.]
Cities of our time are far better suited for public transportation then are the suburbs. With the congestion that currently exists and the accurate stops to which people can accommodate themselves, its no wonder to anyone why trains and buses get full use 24 hours a day in major cities. With over 10 different main subway lines running out of Penn station and thousands of stops which branch off of those. People are far more able to travel in compact environments and would rather use the public transportation after knowing the circumstances. I don’t think a strong argument could be made for cars being a better choice to travel in the big city. [THERE IS SOME LACK OF CLARITY HERE IN DESCRIBING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.] However, my argument lies in the simple fact that cars do a better job for people who live where trains and buses for the majority do not, in the suburbs. As James Wilson writes in his essay “Cars and their enemies,” cars outperform public transit in getting people quickly and efficiently from their front doors to their work places” (Wilson 308). Although I must say for the people who live in the city, this isn’t totally true [YOU’VE ALREADY LEFT THE CITY, SO TO SPEAK; COMING BACK TO IT DOESN’T SEEM TO WORK]; it does apply very nicely to my life style in the suburbs.
However through all this, Erik Sherman, the writer of an article entitled “Tales of commuter Terror,” holds that public transportation is the best form of transportation. In his article he states that “Some truck carrying hazardous material will tip over, and then, of course, the road’s got to be closed or rerouted until cleanup is done”(Sherman 1). Sherman also gives us an interesting statistic later in his article when he states that “according to recent national figures from TTI, traffic congestion is growing faster than potential relief”(Sherman 1). It’s clear in “Tales of commuter Terror,” Erik Sherman has gone outside his means of normality [WHAT DO YOU MEAN HERE? THAT HE HAS NOT MADE A LOGICAL CONCLUSION?] to provide a biased argument against car transportation in the suburbs. He neglects to mention, however a key element. This is the element of accessibility. In many cases of the Suburbs, trains and buses (i.e. public transport) are extremely difficult to access because they do not cover many areas with far less population than the bigger cities. [THIS IS TRUE; IT IS HARD TO COVER SUBURBS WELL WITH PUBLIC TRANSPORTION. THIS IS DEFINITELY A PROBLEM.]
Public transportation only survives by the skin of its teeth each year because it provides for the areas where the most people are going [DO YOU MEAN WHERE THEY’RE TRAVELING TO?]. It’s not even successful for the general majority. It merely works because it gets people to the main stops or places where they are within hopefully a 5 – 10 mile radius of their working place or home. This is all swell in dandy [CHECK CONSTRUCTION], however, I am afraid to note that Wilson also writes with all this being said; “solo car trips made up over half all trips to work.” [YES, LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE STILL DRIVING; CHECK YOUR USE OF THE SEMI-COLON] Basically this is saying that transportation exists, but people choose not to use it because of a few major reasons [IT’S NOT ONLY THE QUOTE THAT IS SAYING THIS, BUT THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH SO FAR]. Amongst these reasons exists the fact that people can’t be guaranteed the arrival of transportation [DO YOU MEAN ARRIVAL TIME?]. With its limited times of departure and arrival, people can merely estimate what time they will arrive. With the car, a person “holds his own destiny.” Meaning basically that if I need to arrive before 5 am for a meeting, I can count on myself and not on that of a beak down, which leads me to my next point[TRUE, BUT IF YOU’RE DRIVING, YOUR CAR MIGHT BREAK DOWN TOO]. People can never be guaranteed there trips [SP/PUNC] arrival on time because it is always in the hands of other people. The Long Island Rail Road strike last year and the MTA strike cost people many times more than just a late start. From first hand experience, my uncle fell a day behind on a major accounting project due to the strike. Many salesman lost business and many others lost opportunities just because workers lost patience in contract negotiations. Is that fair that a person working in New York City lost a business day because Public transportation couldn’t do its job? I really don’t think it is.[GOOD USE OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND ANECDOTE.]
The car makes people in the suburbs solely reliant on themselves. The car’s privacy and effectiveness, for people who live in less congested areas, makes it the best choice of transportation for those in the suburbs. When it comes down to it, for a dependable, accurate trip, a trip without headaches, a commute with a guaranteed time of arrival, if it’s in the suburbs then it has to be the car.[BE CAREFUL OF ALL-OR-NOTHING STATEMENTS; THEY ARE RARELY TRUE. THERE MAY NOT BE HEADACHES IN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, AND THERE MAY BE DELAYS DRIVING, TOO. WHEN I’M LISTENING TO TRAFFIC REPORTS, THERE ARE FEW FEWER DELAYS IN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.] The car has proven to me and to many who have read my essay, that the car is the better fit for commuting in the suburbs. Just something to think about.[BE CAREFUL OF OBTRUSIVE AUTHOR HERE; JUST WRITE WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF THE INFORMAL, CONVERSATIONAL COMMENTS.]
Works Cited
[THERE ARE FORMATTING PROBLEMS WITH WORKS CITED]
Wilson, James Q. Cars and Their Enemies. Text: Presence of Others. Copyright 2000 by Bedford/St. Martin’s publishing.
Sherman, Erik. Tales of Commuter Terror Framingham: Computer World, Oct. 30, 2000.
Dear Student,
You have moved well from your draft. You have provided a clear thesis; your argument is well-stated, although you might have led into it with more specificity. You also have a good sense of the texts that you’re using, but you might want introduce the actual sources and integrate even more textual analysis to help make your points. In some sense, your thesis is not exactly arguable; most people would agree that, lacking an extensive public transportation system, automobiles are more practical for the suburbs. However, automobiles can also have problems–breakdowns, traffic tie-ups, and so on–so your argument would be stronger if you took these potential issues into account and attempted to refute them.
You do include some valid criticisms of public transportation, including your uncle’s experience and scheduling and mechanical problems.
You have a strong sense of what you want to say, but you need to be more organized in the flow of your argument.
Finally, there are a number of mechanical and MLA formatting issues that need to be addressed. And try to be more formal in your tone. Some of your informal introductory phrases (i.e., “this is all swell in dandy” or “although I must say”) could be left off the sentences, and your points would be much more direct and convincing. This would make the tone of your writing more academic.
This is a strong effort overall.