Text 1
Economic historian Lena Ortiz studied the opening of the Marrow Valley railway in 1894. She found that manufacturing employment subsequently rose more rapidly in towns that received stations than in nearby towns that did not. Ortiz concludes that railway access caused the additional growth and recommends using the overall employment gap between the two groups to estimate the size of the railway’s economic effect.
Text 2
Geographer Samuel Adeyemi notes that the railway company initially favored towns that were already attracting factories, so the overall employment gap may partly reflect trends that began before the railway opened. However, a landslide forced an unexpected route change: two towns not originally selected received stations, while two similarly sized towns that had been selected did not. The four towns had shown similar employment trends before 1894, but employment later rose more in the unexpectedly connected towns. Adeyemi argues that this comparison supports a causal role for railway access, though a comparison of only four towns cannot determine how large the effect was across the valley.
Based on the texts, how would Adeyemi most likely respond to Ortiz’s conclusion and recommendation?