To sum this up, I think this piece was a condensed version of a chapter in a political science textbook. I thought it was one of the most informative pieces I read, and a thoroughly researched piece. I would say that the biggest criticism I have for it would be that it did not grab my interest. I did not find it an enjoyable read, though I do give it credit for the details about the U.S. government that I did not know.
The statistics and numbers that were given were definitely eye-openers for me. However I thought these groups or agencies he was talking about in the government were jumbled together and in some ways did not make sense to me. I felt there were some gaps in his research because not everything was told in this article, it was more like a "here's some statistical data to prove what I just wrote. And, the paragraph that followed the data seemed completely irrelevant to what he was just talking about, so bad points on the transitions.
I did find this feature particularly hard to sift through because I knew what the focus was about the bureaucracy getting so big, but the information that was collaborated within to make this point was, in my view, a little draining and overwrought. Once I finished this feature, I felt like a boulder had been lifted off my head.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're right Abby; it's one of the more difficult features we've read so far. The aim of it is to examine the extensive research the author conducted to be able to present such detailed and complicated data to the audience.
ReplyDelete