- What sections does the engineering proposal include? What, if any, sections are missing?
The sections of this rough draft are Issues and Constraints, Current solutions, and Research Proposal solutions. There are a couple of missing sections, and they are: Summary, Introduction, Project Description, Budget, Conclusion, and References
- What problem is the engineering proposal addressing? Does the solution being proposed match the problem described? Is there a need for a solution to the described problem, why or why not?
The problem that this engineering proposal is addressing is the heat in the NYC subway stations that most if not all New York citizens feel and complain about, especially in the summer season. I think the solution proposed is a great idea to solve this kind of issue that has been present for a long time now. Moreover, studies showed that this problem affected people’s health severely, which makes it necessary for the government to find a solution for it as soon as possible.
- Is the solution concrete, specific, and feasible? Identify one place where the language is exceptionally clear and concrete. Offer at least one suggestion on ways to make the proposal more concrete/specific/feasible.
I think that the solution was concrete, specific, and feasible because he explained it in a vivid way especially using visuals which could help the reader understand the idea more. One of the examples where he was extremely clear and relatable is when he said: “Presently, passengers secking relief from the sweltering heat in subway stations have limited options. Their primary recourse is to patiently await the arrival of a train, which will bring temporary relief from the suffocating conditions on the platform.” As a New York citizen, I couldn’t relate more to this statement. I think one thing the writer can add while thinking of the solution is how this idea of cooling the stations may have side effects on the train cars or other aspects of the station.
- Are there any places where the language is too vague? Identify them. What questions do you have about the language? What makes it unclear to you?
I don’t see any place where the language was vague, I think that the language in this proposal was the one we needed to understand and relate to the idea given to us, where he used simple and easy language.
- Was research incorporated into this proposal and cited correctly? Identify a place where research is incorporated well, and what it is doing well. Identify a place where the research is less clear and suggest an improvement.
I think the whole research was cited correctly and in the way the reader will understand. However, it would’ve been better to include the citations close to where the evidence was written.
- Are there any figures or tables? If so, are they formatted correctly? If not, are there any areas of the proposal that could be clarified by including a figure or table?
There were several parts of this proposal that gave us different types of visuals such as pie charts, engine images, or labeled pictures of machines. I think they were formatted correctly and, in a way, where if we found it difficult to understand a certain idea, we would refer to the visuals.
- Identify 2 Strengths, and 2 areas for improvement and ask 1 question about the content written.
Two strengths I can give the creator are the creativity of the idea proposed. I think the situation of the NYC train stations is one not a lot of people mention and work on to get solved. Second, the usage of media and visuals as explained before gives color and more understanding to the proposal. Two weaknesses I can address here are that more evidence on the situations you explained can be present and some detailed numbers or data about the facts you explained about throughout the proposal. One question I propose is that if this solution is the most valid one, what is the reason that makes the government not take that first step yet?
