Kathryn Schulz’s article “The Really Big One” details a potential natural disaster that would harm millions of people who occupy The Pacific Northwest. Three qualities make it stand out from other articles you might come across. Her points are explained in depth and she has organized them in a way that is tasteful and digestible. Simultaneously, she feeds you information that could be life-saving while entertaining you. Lastly, she uses language that is relevant to those who would be devasted the by the potential catastrophic earthquake. For writers, it is important to emulate these key features of her article.
A great example of her engaging writing is the opening scene of her article. When the 2011 Tohoku earthquake hit Japan, a seismology conference was wrapping up. Schulz gives readers a basic premise: “Seismologists know that how long an earthquake lasts is a decent proxy for its magnitude.” When she tells paleo-seismologist Goldfinger’s experience of the earthquake, she creates dread by relaying the events by the minute.
However, the story serves additional purposes. It lays important groundwork for the topic of the article. It introduces the severity of an earthquake, how we ignore danger, and an important source for her article while drawing you in. It’s important when writing to make your sources serve multiple purposes. It adds depth, leaves readers with more to think about, and keeps them engaged.
Like in Goldfinger’s story, Kathryn Schulz sprinkles important information and context for readers. She supports her core ideas with a variety of good sources. By using Goldfinger, OSSPAC, Kenneth Murphy and Dough Dougherty, she combines professional opinions, historic precedents, agencies and personal accounts. Because of this, her logical arguments are built on a solid foundation.
I’d like to point out how she uses terms and language that her audience would understand. “OSSPAC estimates that in the I-5 corridor it will take between one and three months after the earthquake to restore electricity…” This source from her article shows how she is using the geographical locations and terms that those who would suffer the most from “The Really Big One” understand. It paints a much clearer picture of the damage and aftermath of the earthquake. She also explains the technical language and complicated scientific concepts concisely or creatively, which makes it far easier to read and conceptualize.
Along with that point, she writes in such a way that it appeals to surface level and deep reading. You can have bullet point facts while also picking up on nuanced concepts—such as the criticism of Oregon policy regarding earthquake safety and prevention. She foreshadows this concept when she mentions Japanese scientists and leaders disregarding Yasutaka Ikeda’s warning in the opening of the article. She then iterates on that point with the neglected native history of the Pacific Northwest, the realization of a previous earthquake that devastated the region, and finally nails the point home when she reveals the neglect of contractors, local government, and residents.
I think Kathryn Schulz accomplished what many aspiring writers and journalists wish to do. She wrote an engaging article that combines credible arguments and appeals in a way that is entertaining and easy to read. Each part of her writing contributes multi-dimensionally. She wrote about something that matters and made her writing matter.
Science Writings 
