I think Burnett begins his proposal with these observations to prepare the readers for what they are about the read and give them some insight on what his proposal is going to be about. Though if I had more information about the differences between the state and federal parks, I would have understood this essay a lot more. If Burnett would have explained what these organizations were and what all the numbers and figure meant the readers may not have been so lost through the essay. The call to action toward the end was fuzzy. I did not understand what he was proposing, or asking that his readers do. From what I can grasp, he wants the federal parks to hand over the reins to the states because they are doing a much better job at making money and improving safety, sanitation, and the environment. This would save the government, and more importantly, the tax-payers' money. I am suddenly interested by this because I, too, am a tax-payer...
To compare the federal parks and the states parks is pretty much that the national parks are losing money and not improving and that the state parks are thriving and making tons of money.
Though this essay wasn't awful, I think the author could have explained himself and some of the numbers and terminology he used.
No comments:
Post a Comment