Complete the following tasks using your own words as far as is appropriate. Quote correctly.

Outline the concept and layout of the Culdesac project against the backdrop of the typical US cityscape.

Analyse the writer's viewpoint on US city planning and the underlying cultural values, taking into account the strategies he uses to convey his message as well as three different examples of his use of language.

Choose one of the following topics and write a coherent text laying out your ideas.

Holding on to tradition – stifling innovation?

Discuss.

"Knowledge is fundamental to all human achievements and progress."
(Neil Armstrong, 1930-2012, American astronaut)

Comment on this statement.

Describe briefly, analyse and comment on the cartoon.

Culdesac is a car-free neighbourhood in Phoenix, Arizona, designed to encourage walkability and social interaction rather than car dependency. The project covers 17 acres and will eventually contain 760 housing units in two- and three-storey buildings. Instead of offering parking spaces, the development mixes apartments with everyday amenities such as a grocery store, restaurant and yoga studio, and centres around courtyards and pedestrian “paseos” that provide shaded, communal spaces. The style of the buildings, described as Mediterranean-inspired, deliberately creates a more human-scale environment.

This stands in stark contrast to the typical American cityscape, which is shaped by widespread car ownership and suburban sprawl. Across the US, housing is often either isolated single-family homes with long commutes or mid-rise apartment blocks designed around car parks. Strict zoning laws separate residential and commercial areas and require large amounts of parking, which makes cars essential for daily life. As a result, US cities tend to lack the mixed-use, walkable qualities that Culdesac is trying to reintroduce.

The writer presents a strongly critical view of US city planning, arguing that it has produced a culture of car dependency that isolates people and damages both the environment and community life. He suggests that highways and zoning laws have “obliterated and dislocated communities,” particularly harming poorer and minority neighbourhoods, and that the separation of homes from shops and workplaces has left Americans “ruthlessly separated from most of our daily needs and also from each other.” In this sense, he sees Culdesac as more than just an architectural experiment: it is portrayed as both a climate-friendly alternative and a chance to recover social cohesion.

To communicate this perspective, the writer uses contrast, evocative language and cultural comparisons. He underlines the irony that such a project has emerged in Phoenix, “sometimes derided as the least sustainable city,” which highlights how unusual and pioneering Culdesac is in the American context. His description of highways that “obliterated and dislocated communities” employs violent and destructive language to emphasise the human cost of past urban planning decisions. In another example, he appeals to readers’ emotions through nostalgia, citing Johnson’s remark that people “look back nostalgically at college” as the only time many have lived in walkable communities, thus reinforcing the idea that such neighbourhoods are rare but deeply valued. Finally, his use of European imagery, describing Culdesac as “positively European, somewhere between Mykonos and Ibiza,” suggests an attractive and vibrant lifestyle in direct opposition to the “charmless, utilitarian boxes” of typical American housing. Overall, the writer positions US car-centric planning as both culturally and environmentally destructive, while presenting Culdesac as a hopeful model for change that challenges deep-rooted American ideals of freedom and success tied to the car and the suburban home.

Tradition can provide stability, identity and continuity, yet it can also act as a barrier to progress if it resists necessary change. In many cultures, traditions preserve important values, rituals and a sense of belonging. For example, festivals, religious practices or forms of art often connect people across generations and help maintain social cohesion. Without tradition, societies might lack roots and a shared sense of meaning.

At the same time, clinging too tightly to tradition can prevent innovation. In areas such as science, politics and education, progress depends on questioning old ideas and adopting new ones. For instance, medical breakthroughs have often required challenging traditional beliefs about health, while advances in technology frequently demand rethinking established methods. Societies that refuse to adapt risk being left behind, as shown in economies that resisted industrial or digital transformation. The relationship between tradition and innovation is therefore not one of simple opposition but of balance. Tradition can enrich innovation by providing a cultural foundation to build on, while innovation ensures that traditions remain relevant rather than restrictive. In this way, holding on to tradition does not necessarily stifle innovation, but it must be flexible enough to allow for change.

Neil Armstrong’s statement highlights the central role of knowledge in enabling human progress. Almost every major achievement in history, from the invention of the wheel to space exploration, has depended on the accumulation and application of knowledge. Armstrong himself symbolised this idea: the moon landing was the result of centuries of scientific discovery, technological development and problem-solving. Without knowledge, such progress would have been impossible.

However, while knowledge is fundamental, it is not the only factor in human achievement. Progress also depends on creativity, imagination and determination. Knowledge alone does not guarantee success unless people are willing to use it in new ways and take risks. For example, scientific knowledge about electricity existed long before it was applied to create modern technology; it required inventors like Edison and Tesla to transform knowledge into practical achievements. Furthermore, knowledge can be used both positively and negatively. The same knowledge that allows for medical cures can also produce destructive weapons. Therefore, human progress is not only about acquiring knowledge but also about using it responsibly and ethically. In conclusion, Armstrong’s statement is convincing in emphasising the central importance of knowledge, but it is also clear that knowledge must be combined with imagination, values and responsibility to truly drive human progress.

The cartoon contrasts three forms of transport: a crowded bus filled with passengers, a car with only a single occupant, and a lone cyclist on the road.

The main technique here is contrast. The jam-packed tram symbolises efficiency in terms of passenger numbers but also highlights the discomfort and limitations of current public transport systems. The almost-empty car represents the opposite: comfort for the individual but wastefulness of space and resources. The cyclist provides a third option, suggesting independence, freedom, and environmental friendliness. The placement of the cyclist is important. It breaks the binary opposition of “either car or public transport” and introduces an alternative form of mobility that is sustainable, healthy, and personal. This broadens the cartoon’s critique: not only is car use shown as inefficient, but public transport is shown as needing improvement, while cycling emerges as a simple yet often overlooked solution. Due to the little space that the cyclist takes up on the road while being on busy roads, one can clearly see the worried look of the cyclist. By including the cyclist, the cartoon offers a more nuanced perspective on transport debates. It implicitly supports the idea of diversifying mobility choices: better public transport, fewer cars, and more encouragement for cycling. The advocacy message behind it ties into sustainable urban planning and mobility reforms, pressing the viewer to rethink cultural habits around transport. The humour and exaggeration—the cramped tram versus the lonely car—make the point visually striking, while the cyclist quietly points to a practical alternative. In this way, the cartoon not only criticises current inefficiencies but also hints at a future where greener and more balanced transport systems are possible if necessary changes are made.