Question 113·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1 Urban historian Lydia Cruz argues that replacing aging buildings with new energy-efficient structures is the quickest way for cities to reduce their carbon footprints. She points to several redevelopment projects that immediately cut building-related emissions by over 30 percent. Cruz maintains that retrofitting old structures is costly and yields only marginal gains.
Text 2 Architectural engineer Omar Singh contends that the “scrap and rebuild” approach overlooks the substantial carbon emitted during demolition and new construction. In his life-cycle analyses of office towers in Sydney and Toronto, he found that retaining and upgrading existing frames saved more total emissions over 40 years than demolition followed by new construction, even when the new buildings met the highest efficiency standards.
Based on the two texts, how would Singh (Text 2) most likely respond to Cruz’s position in Text 1?
For cross-text “How would one author respond to the other?” questions, first summarize each author’s main claim in a short phrase (e.g., “new construction is quickest” vs. “retrofitting saves more total emissions over time”). Decide if the second author would agree or disagree and why, using only evidence stated in the texts. Then eliminate answer choices that: (1) conflict with the second author’s stated view, (2) introduce new topics (like regulations or building types) that aren’t mentioned, or (3) oversimplify by ignoring key conditions such as time frame or total vs. immediate effects. Always match the wording of the correct answer directly to key phrases in the passages.
Hints
Start with Cruz’s main idea
Restate in your own words what Cruz believes is the best way to reduce carbon emissions and how she views retrofitting older buildings.
Identify Singh’s main criticism
Focus on the sentence with the phrase “overlooks the substantial carbon emitted.” What exactly does Singh think is being ignored?
Decide if Singh would agree or disagree
Ask yourself: Does Singh support Cruz’s “scrap and rebuild” approach, or does his data suggest a different conclusion over the long term?
Eliminate choices that add new topics
Check each option for ideas that never appear in either text, such as specific regulations, types of buildings not mentioned, or money-related arguments that are not in Text 2.
Step-by-step Explanation
Clarify Cruz’s main claim (Text 1)
Cruz says that replacing old buildings with new energy-efficient ones is the quickest way to reduce cities’ carbon footprints. She supports this with examples of redevelopment projects that immediately cut emissions by over 30 percent and says retrofitting old buildings is costly and gives only small improvements.
Clarify Singh’s main claim (Text 2)
Singh argues that the “scrap and rebuild” approach “overlooks the substantial carbon emitted during demolition and new construction.” His research shows that keeping and upgrading existing structures saves more total emissions over 40 years than demolishing and rebuilding, even when the new buildings are very efficient.
Compare how Singh’s view relates to Cruz’s position
Cruz focuses on immediate operational emission cuts once new buildings are in use and dismisses retrofits as giving only “marginal gains.” Singh, however, looks at life-cycle emissions, including the carbon from demolition and construction, and finds that in the long run, retrofitting can save more total emissions. This means Singh disagrees with Cruz’s approach and thinks she is missing part of the environmental picture.
Match their relationship to the best answer choice
We need the option that shows Singh pushing back against Cruz by emphasizing what her view leaves out: the emissions from tearing down and building new. Choice D, “He would assert that Cruz underestimates the environmental costs associated with demolition and new construction,” directly matches Singh’s claim that the “scrap and rebuild” approach ignores the substantial carbon from those processes, so D is the correct answer.