Question 136·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
A growing number of city governments are investing in community gardens, citing studies that link the presence of such gardens to significant decreases in neighborhood crime rates. One widely cited 2019 report found that, after a garden was established on a vacant lot, incidents of vandalism and burglary within a three-block radius fell by nearly 30 percent over the next two years. City officials therefore argue that supporting community gardens is a cost-effective way to improve public safety.
Text 2
In reviewing the same neighborhoods highlighted in the 2019 report, a team of sociologists found no consistent relationship between the creation of community gardens and lower crime. The team notes that crime had already been declining for four consecutive years before any gardens were planted and points to increased police foot patrols during the study period as a more plausible explanation. The sociologists caution policymakers against assuming that gardens alone produce measurable public-safety benefits.
Based on the texts, how would the sociologists in Text 2 most likely respond to the city officials’ claim in Text 1 that community gardens are a cost-effective means of reducing crime?
For cross-text Reading & Writing questions, start by identifying the key claim or conclusion in the first text, then read the second text with one purpose: how does it respond to or relate to that claim (agree, disagree, offer an alternative explanation, add a condition)? Underline phrases that signal the second author’s stance (like “no consistent relationship,” “more plausible explanation,” or “caution against assuming”). When you go to the choices, quickly eliminate any that bring in ideas not mentioned in the second text (new topics like money, feelings, or effects that weren’t discussed), and then choose the option that most directly captures the second text’s stated criticism or support of the first text’s claim.
Hints
Locate the key claim in Text 1
Find the sentence in Text 1 where the city officials draw a conclusion from the 2019 report. What exactly are they claiming community gardens do?
Identify the main point of Text 2
In Text 2, focus on what the sociologists say about the relationship between gardens and crime. Do they agree that gardens clearly reduce crime, or do they question that conclusion?
Notice the alternative explanations
What other changes in the neighborhoods does Text 2 mention besides the creation of gardens? How might these affect the interpretation of the crime data?
Eliminate choices that add new ideas
Remove any answer options that talk about issues not mentioned in Text 2, such as money, residents’ feelings, or increases in crime. Then choose the option that best captures the kind of criticism the sociologists actually make.
Step-by-step Explanation
Restate what the city officials claim in Text 1
Look at Text 1: it says that after a garden was established, vandalism and burglary nearby fell by nearly 30 percent, and then, based on this, city officials argue that supporting community gardens is a cost-effective way to improve public safety.
So Text 1 is claiming gardens reduce crime, and therefore they are a good, inexpensive crime-reduction strategy.
Understand what the sociologists say in Text 2
Now read Text 2. The sociologists say that when they review the same neighborhoods, they "found no consistent relationship between the creation of community gardens and lower crime."
Then they give other information:
- Crime had already been declining for four consecutive years before gardens.
- There were increased police foot patrols during the study period.
They see these as a “more plausible explanation” for the crime drop and warn against assuming gardens alone cause lower crime.
Connect Text 2’s criticism to Text 1’s claim
The question asks how the sociologists (Text 2) would respond to the city officials’ claim (Text 1) that gardens are a cost-effective way to reduce crime.
From Step 2, we know the sociologists believe:
- The crime drop might be due to other factors (pre-existing decline and more police patrols), not the gardens.
- Policymakers should not assume gardens alone produce safety benefits.
So we need an answer choice that says the officials are wrongly giving credit to gardens and overlooking other explanations.
Match that idea to the answer choices
Check each option against what Text 2 actually says:
- A: Talks about underestimating financial investment, but Text 2 never mentions cost or money.
- B: Talks about misinterpreting residents’ perceptions of safety, but both texts discuss crime data, not feelings or perceptions.
- C: Says gardens might increase minor offenses, but Text 2 does not say gardens increase any crimes; it just questions whether gardens cause decreases.
- D: Says officials ignore other factors that may better account for the reported drop in crime, which fits perfectly with the sociologists’ points about the pre-existing crime decline and increased police patrols.
Therefore, the correct answer is D) By arguing that the officials ignore other factors that may better account for the reported drop in crime.