Practice Question

Instructions
Read
• On the page 2 tab above, you will read two texts presenting different views on the same topic.
• Both writers argue that their position on the issue is correct. Plan
• Analyze the two texts to determine which writer presents the stronger case.
• Develop your own argument in which you explain how one position is better supported than the other.
• Include relevant and specific evidence from both sources to support your argument.
Write
•Type your response in the box on the right.
•Your response should be approximately 4 to 7 paragraphs of 3 to 7 sentences each.
• Remember to allow a few minutes to review and edit your response.

Both manuel sanchez and debra chou present argument regarding the implementation of highspeed rail in the states. While sanchez argues that the project will bring economic benefits, reduce traffic and be environmentally friendly, Chou counters that the project will be costly and have minimal environmental impact. Upon analyzing their argument Chou provide a stronger case due the use of evidence and focus on the financial and practical limitations of the project.
Sanchez emphasizes the potential benefits of highspeed rail including economic growth, reduced road congestion and environmental sustainability. He highlights that high speed rails can connect city centers, create jobs and serve as a green alternative to other transportation methods. He also indicates that the rail would reduce dependency on cars and airplanes promoting a cleaner environment.
Chou on the other hand challenges sanchez claims by pointing out the practical and financial challenges on high speed rail. She argues that the ridership number are overly estimated with most travellers opting for cars due to convenience and affordability. She also questions the environmental benefits citing studies showing minimal reducions in cabon emissions. She emphasizes the enormous cost of construction, mentainance and taxpayer subsidies which outways the proposed benefits.
While sanchez represents an optimistic view of high speed rail, his argument lacks specific evidence to support his claims. For example, he does not address the cost of potential challanges in implementation. Chaos argument however is grounded in evidence and includes real world examples such as high cost of similar projects in california.
In conclusion, while both sanchez and chou provide valid perspectives, Chou presents a stronger argument against high speed rail. Her use of evidence focus on practical concerns and critique of environmental claims provide a more balanced and convincing case.


High-Speed Rail: Is It Time?
To ease traffic congestion and connect communities, many cities are exploring high-speed rail, or commuter trains. The following transcript is from State Matters, a weekly television program.
Manuel Sanchez, State Representative, District 109
1. SANCHEZ: Good evening. Our state has a great opportunity to become a leader in twenty-first-century transportation. The bond issue before voters in June will allow us to begin planning for a high-speed rail system that will lower road and air travel congestion. It will have powerful conomic benefits for our state, and an added benefit is that it will be highly sustainable and green.
2. High-speed, or light-rait, trains will offer safe, fast, comfortable, and convenient travel among the three major cities in our state. They will relieve interstate highway congestion and can carry as many people as a 10-lane highway. Unlike airports, high-speed rail hubs can be built in city centers, so passengers finish their trips in the heart of business, shopping, and tourist destinations.
3. Building high-speed rail creates many new jobs for not only construction workers and their suppliers but also for those responsible for operating and maintaining the system. In addition, high-speed rail encourages growth. Restaurants, lodging, retail shops, and other businesses tend to spring up near high-speed rail stations. One source estimates that a high-speed rail hub has the equivalent economic impact of a medium- sized airport in the center of a city.
4. Finally, high-speed trains are sustainable, green transportation. The trains are powered by electricity. Therefore, they reduce greenhouse emissions and lower our dependence on fossil fuels. The California High-Speed Rail Authority states that high-speed trains use only one-third the energy of airplanes and one-fifth the energy of automobiles.
5. It is time to get on the high-speed train.

Debra Chou, State Representative, District 33
6. CHOU: Good evening. While I agree with Representative Sanchez that our state has some serious and immediate concerns with its transportation, I do not agree that high-speed rail is the answer to our problems. The system proposed under the current bond issue will not alleviate our crowded highways and airports. Further, it is costly and there is slim proof that it will yield the economic or environmental benefits Mr. Sanchez promises.
7. Several critics of high-speed rail have pointed out that the number of potential riders has been overestimated. In almost every case in Europe and China, high-speed rail passenger numbers have been greatly overestimated. Because high-speed trains travel from the center of one city to the center of another, business travelers and wealthier passengers, whose destinations are large cities, most often use them. The average citizen on the way to the grocery store or a doctor's appointment does not. The relatively high cost of a ticket further discourages most people, who find travel by automobile less expensive. This is not public transit.
8. It is true that the building, operation, and maintenance of high-speed rail will create jobs. However, these gains will be offset by the huge expense of its construction. California estimates high-speed rail from San Diego to Sacramento will cost $100 billion over 20 years. In addition, even the current huge budget is likely underestimated. One study shows that large transportation projects typically run over budget. Other studies show that ticket sales never cover the cost of operating high-speed rail, so the systems are doomed to be forever taxpayer subsidized.
9. Finally, high-speed rail systems are not as green as those who favor the system want us to believe. A study by the University of California at Berkeley has shown that the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by high-speed rail is less than 1%. This is far less of a reduction in greenhouse gases than we have been led to believe. Studies show that most people would rather travel by car because of ticket costs and inconveniently located train stops. Thus, the estimates of lower fuel emissions with high-speed rail are greatly inflated.
10 we need to think carefully before using state money to fund this project