hard · Act reading

Critics of the new urban-greening initiative argued that planting trees along commercial corridors was a cosmetic gesture that would do little for the neighborhoods that needed help most. The economist who designed the program did not dispute that trees alone could not lift a struggling district. She maintained, however, that the canopy was never meant to act in isolation: shade lowered summer cooling costs, cooler storefronts kept foot traffic steady through July and August, and steady foot traffic was precisely the variable on which small retailers' survival turned. The trees, in her account, were not the cure but the first link in a chain whose final term was an economic one. The passage indicates that the economist responds to her critics primarily by:

1. conceding their central claim while reframing the trees as one step in a longer causal sequence.
2. denying that the greening initiative was ever intended to be cosmetic in nature.
3. presenting data showing that tree-planting alone reliably revives struggling commercial districts.
4. arguing that the critics have misunderstood which neighborhoods the program was designed to serve.

Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →