March 29 Exam

Alejandro Sanchez
Period 8
03.29.23

1a) Two negative impacts of urbanization, as given by the author of Document 1, are:

1. Nearly 40% of the world's urban expansion may be in slums with unsanitary conditions,
contributing to economic inequality and poor living conditions.
2. Many cities are located in coastal areas or on river banks, making them vulnerable to natural
disasters such as storms, cyclones, and floods.

1b) The author of Document 1 explains that cities are addressing poverty through initiatives like New
York City's "Opportunity NYC: Family Rewards" program. This program aimed to reduce poverty and
inequalities by providing households with cash incentives for preventive health care, education, and job
training.

1c) Two measures governments need to take to respond to the challenges of rapid urbanization, as
given by the author of Document 1, are:

1. Designing a national urbanization strategy to identify urban development priorities and plan and
coordinate actions by everyone involved.
2. Supplying the necessary public services and infrastructure as cities grow.

2. Strengths and weaknesses of the evidence used by the author of Document 1 to support his views on
urbanization:

Strengths:

1. The author cites credible sources, such as the United Nations Development Programme and UN
Habitat, to support his points about urbanization and its impact.
2. The author uses relevant data and projections, such as urban population growth rates and the
need for a massive investment in global infrastructure, to highlight the challenges of rapid
urbanization.

Weaknesses:

1. The author provides only a few specific examples of initiatives addressing poverty and improving
infrastructure, which may not be representative of all cities or provide a comprehensive view of
ongoing efforts.
2. The evidence is mainly focused on the negative impacts of urbanization, and although some
positive aspects are mentioned, a more balanced view could help support a stronger argument.
3.

The extent to which the argument in Document 2 is more convincing than the argument in Document 1
depends on several factors, including the specificity of examples, relevance to a particular context, and
the focus of the arguments.

One significant difference is the specificity of examples. Document 2 provides specific examples of urban
planning failures in Australian cities such as Melbourne, Brisbane, and Sydney. It highlights issues like
urban growth boundaries, vertical slums, lack of green spaces, and inadequate infrastructure. These
specific examples make the argument more concrete and relatable. On the other hand, Document 1
provides a broader view of urbanization's challenges and opportunities, with fewer specific examples.
While it does mention initiatives in New York City and global air pollution measures, the discussion
remains more general.

Another factor is the relevance to context. Document 2 is focused on the Australian context, addressing
the country's unique challenges in urban planning due to its rapidly growing population. This focus
might make the argument more convincing for readers who are specifically interested in or affected by
Australian urbanization. In contrast, Document 1 discusses urbanization on a global scale, which may be
more relevant to a wider audience but lacks the in-depth exploration of a particular context that
Document 2 provides

In terms of focus, Document 2 primarily discusses the negative aspects of urban planning and growth in
Australian cities, emphasizing the need for better planning and government involvement. This
perspective can be more convincing for readers concerned with the consequences of poorly managed
urbanization. Document 1, however, presents a more balanced view, discussing both the positive
aspects of urbanization, such as cities being centers of learning and innovation, and the challenges it
brings.

In conclusion, the argument in Document 2 can be considered more convincing than the argument in
Document 1 due to its specific examples, relevance to the Australian context, and focus on urban
planning issues. However, the persuasiveness of each argument ultimately depends on the reader's
interests, priorities, and perspectives on urbanization.