Question 7·Easy·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Urban sociologist Marisol Vega argues that understanding city parks requires first sorting them into three main categories. According to Vega, recreative parks (designed mainly for sports and play), ecological reserves (aimed at conserving native species), and aesthetic gardens (intended to beautify dense neighborhoods) each fulfill distinct social functions. Vega contends that this tripartite framework provides the clearest lens through which planners and researchers can evaluate the success of urban green spaces.
Text 2
Landscape architect Theo Zhang cautions that classifying urban parks into fixed types, however convenient, often obscures their complexity. Zhang notes that many city parks simultaneously host soccer leagues, protect wetlands, and display elaborate flower beds—activities that cross any neat boundary. Relying on rigid categories, Zhang argues, can prevent planners from appreciating the hybrid character that gives many parks their unique value.
Which choice best describes a difference in how the authors of Text 1 and Text 2 view categorizing urban parks?
For cross-text connection questions, first summarize each text’s main point in a short phrase (e.g., "pro-categories" vs. "categories are too rigid"). Then scan the choices and immediately cross out any that mention ideas not in either text (like numbers of parks, economics, health, or size here). Finally, choose the option that accurately states both views and clearly contrasts them, making sure every part of the answer is supported by the passages.
Hints
Identify each author’s attitude
Reread the first and last sentences of each text. Ask yourself: Does each author sound in favor of or against classifying parks in a certain way?
Focus on what is and is not discussed
Check whether either text ever mentions changes in the number of parks, economic or health benefits, or the size of parks. Eliminate any choices that rely on ideas that never appear.
Compare the authors directly
Once you’ve summarized each author’s view on categorizing parks in your own words, look for the answer choice that clearly contrasts those two views, not one that introduces a new topic.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the main point of Text 1
Focus on what Vega (Text 1) says about categorizing parks:
- She proposes three categories: recreative parks, ecological reserves, and aesthetic gardens.
- She says this "tripartite framework provides the clearest lens" for understanding and evaluating city parks.
So, the author of Text 1 approves of and prefers a three-category model for studying urban parks.
Understand the main point of Text 2
Now look at Zhang (Text 2) and how he reacts to categorizing parks:
- He "cautions" that classifying parks into fixed types can "obscure their complexity."
- He gives examples of parks that do many things at once (sports, wetlands protection, flower beds).
- He says that relying on rigid categories can prevent planners from appreciating the "hybrid character" of many parks.
So, the author of Text 2 criticizes rigid, fixed categories for oversimplifying urban parks.
Match the contrast to the correct choice
Combine the two views:
- Text 1: A three-part categorization is the best/clearest way to study parks.
- Text 2: Fixed categories are too rigid and oversimplify complex, hybrid parks.
Scan the answer choices for one that states this exact difference—support for a three-category model in one text versus concern that such a model is too simple in the other.
The choice that correctly describes this contrast is:
D) While the author of Text 1 views a three-category model as the most effective way to study urban parks, the author of Text 2 believes such a model oversimplifies these spaces.