Business Communication 2 : Assignment 1 : Re-Writing an Article

Find an article or letter online. This must be in English. This must contain at least one anecdote. This must be between 350 and 550 words (if it's longer, you can cut out parts of it).

Your assignment is to alter or modify this article. You must

Your final work doesn't need to have exactly the same number of words as the article, but it must be between 350 and 550 words and contain the same ideas and general theme (but must have a different strategy of explaining ideas). Your assignment should be on TWO pages ONLY. The smallest font size you can use is 11. Please follow the example I have provided below.

This assignment is worth 20 Points. You will get points based on

You have ONE WEEK to complete this assignment (due 26th of September, during class). Late assignments should be sent directly to my office and will still be accepted but you will lose marks.


Business Communication 2 : Re-Writing an Article

Name / Student Number / Email Address / Date of Submission

Reference Article (from The Economist : www.economist.com/blah/2/train.php)

AT THE launch of the Liverpool-Manchester railway in 1830, a statesman was killed when he failed to spot an approaching train. That was not the last time a new train line has had unintended consequences. Victorian railways ushered in a golden age of prosperity; these days politicians across the developed world hope new rapid trains, which barrel along at over 250mph (400kph), can do the same. But high-speed rail rarely delivers the widespread economic benefits its boosters predict. The British government—the latest to be beguiled by this vision of modernity—should think again.

High-speed talk is everywhere at the moment. Six countries have put large sums into “bullet” trains: Japan, France, Germany, Spain, and, more recently, Italy and China. And the British government is pondering plans for a £32 billion ($52 billion) link from London to the north of England. Ventures elsewhere have stumbled: China suspended new projects after a fatal collision of two high-speed trains in July; Brazil delayed plans for a rapid Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo link, after lack of interest from construction firms. Yet governments remain susceptible to the idea that such projects can help to diminish regional inequalities and promote growth.

In fact, in most developed economies high-speed railways fail to bridge regional divides and sometimes exacerbate them. Better connections strengthen the advantages of a rich city at the network’s hub: firms in wealthy regions can reach a bigger area, harming the prospects of poorer places. Even in Japan, home to the most commercially successful line, Tokyo continues to grow faster than Osaka. New Spanish rail lines have swelled Madrid’s business population to Seville’s loss.

Even if some cities benefit, other places beyond the rail network may suffer: speed is attained partly at the cost of stops, so areas well served by existing services may find new lines bypass them. Parts of Britain, for example, fear that a new zippy railway will create a second tier of cities supplied by fewer and slower trains.

The advantages, meanwhile, mostly accrue to business travellers. In China ticket prices are beyond the reach of most people, so new trains yawn with empty seats.
Yet because high-speed lines require huge investments, usually by governments, ordinary taxpayers end up paying. So instead of redistributing wealth and opportunities, rich regions and individuals benefit at the expense of poorer ones.

Ultra-fast railways will have their day. They are a good way to cut air travel and carbon emissions, particularly where, as in China, they connect dense but distant population clusters. On shorter routes, their advantages dwindle: they can neither transform a region nor replicate the advantages of wider networks.
And there is not yet such a thing as a cheap high-speed link.

And those costs sap funding from humbler but more efficient schemes. Especially in smaller countries, upgrading existing, slower networks often makes more sense. Capacity can be increased with longer trains and extended platforms. Better signalling can increase the average speed of journeys.

Britain still has time to ditch this grand infrastructure project—and should. Other countries should also reconsider plans to expand or introduce such lines. A good infrastructure scheme has a long life. But a bad one can derail both the public finances and a country’s development ambitions.


Altered Article

Creating transport infrastructure is popular among politicians worldwide. Park Chung Hee built highways that (initially at least) led to nowhere and before the British built train networks all around their colonies. The argument is this helps encourage and equitably spread development. In some cases, this is true. However this does not apply to the British government's recent decision to invest in a high-speed train network.

Ultra-fast railways have many advantages. They are a good way to cut air travel and carbon emissions, particularly where, as in China, they connect dense but distant population clusters. On shorter routes, their advantages dwindle: they can neither transform a region nor replicate the advantages of wider networks. Furthermore there is not yet such a thing as a cheap high-speed link.

Even if some cities benefit, other places beyond the rail network may suffer: speed is attained partly at the cost of stops, so areas well served by existing services may find new lines bypass them. Parts of Britain, for example, fear that a new zippy railway will create a second tier of cities supplied by fewer and slower trains.

In reality in most developed economies high-speed railways fail to bridge regional divides and sometimes exacerbate them. Better connections strengthen the advantages of a rich city at the network’s hub: firms in wealthy regions can reach a bigger area, harming the prospects of poorer places. Even in Japan, home to the most commercially successful line, Tokyo continues to grow faster than Osaka. New Spanish rail lines have swelled Madrid’s business population to Seville’s loss.

The advantages, meanwhile, mostly accrue to business travellers. In China ticket prices are beyond the reach of most people, so new trains yawn with empty seats.
However because high-speed lines require huge investments, usually by governments, ordinary taxpayers end up paying. So rather than redistributing wealth and opportunities, rich regions and individuals benefit at the expense of poorer ones.

All this
also saps funding from humbler but more efficient schemes. Especially in smaller countries, upgrading existing, slower networks often makes more sense. Capacity can be increased with longer trains and extended platforms.

Nevertheless high-speed talk is everywhere. Six countries have put large sums into “bullet” trains: Japan, France, Germany, Spain, and, more recently, Italy and China. And the British government is pondering plans for a £32 billion ($52 billion) link from London to the north of England. Ventures elsewhere have stumbled: China suspended new projects after a fatal collision of two high-speed trains in July; Brazil delayed plans for a rapid Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo link, after lack of interest from construction firms.

Governments remain susceptible to the idea that such projects can help to diminish regional inequalities and promote growth, yet often this is untrue. High-speed networks concentrate development in hubs that become more accessible and skip over smaller cities. They are expensive, and while everyone has to pay for them, often only the most privileged benefit from them. Most damagingly, they detract valuable resources that could be spent upgrading existing networks that would benefit everyone. Not all infrastructure projects are a bad idea, but this one definitely is. High-speed change can come with slow small steps.


Transition Words Changed

instead of = rather than                                And = Also

and = furthermore                                        in fact = in reality

Yet = However