Question 77·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
City planners often overlook the humble community garden when drafting redevelopment blueprints, yet these volunteer-tended plots provide more than fresh produce. Because the labor is shared and the harvest is distributed without regard to income or background, gardens become what sociologists call "third places"—neutral grounds where neighbors meet, cooperate, and form enduring bonds. Consequently, once a municipality allocates an unused lot, the community itself will maintain that space indefinitely, reaping both environmental and social dividends.
Text 2
A recent multi-city study tracked 312 community gardens over a decade. Researchers confirmed that the gardens strengthened neighborhood ties and reduced residents' feelings of isolation. However, the data also revealed an unintended consequence: in areas where property values rose sharply, 41 % of gardens were later converted into private developments despite vigorous local protests. Lead author Dr. Lin observes, "Communal enthusiasm alone cannot counteract market forces; without legal protections, many gardens will disappear just as their social benefits peak."
Question
Based on the information in both texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to Text 1's assertion that simply setting aside a vacant lot ensures a garden's long-term success?
For cross-text connection questions, first isolate the key claim or prediction in the first text (often in the last sentence), then summarize what the second text confirms, challenges, or modifies about that claim. Ask: does the second author mostly agree, mostly disagree, or agree but add limits? Then eliminate choices that contradict clear facts (like whether a benefit is confirmed) or introduce new ideas not in either passage. Prefer answers that match both the content (what each text actually says) and the degree of agreement or disagreement (total vs partial).
Hints
Locate Text 1’s key claim
Reread the last sentence of Text 1. What does the author say will happen "once a municipality allocates an unused lot"? Focus on what is promised about how long the garden will last.
Check what Text 2 confirms and what it complicates
In Text 2, notice both parts: what the researchers say gardens do for social connections, and what happens to many gardens when property values rise. How does this affect the idea that gardens will last "indefinitely"?
Decide if Text 2 fully agrees or adds a warning
Ask yourself: does Text 2 completely agree with Text 1’s confidence, completely reject it, or mostly agree but add an important condition or limitation?
Test each answer against both texts
For each option, check: (1) Does it recognize that gardens build social bonds? (2) Does it account for the role of economic pressures and the need for protections mentioned by Dr. Lin?
Step-by-step Explanation
Pinpoint Text 1’s main claim about permanence
Look at the final sentence of Text 1: "Consequently, once a municipality allocates an unused lot, the community itself will maintain that space indefinitely." This says that simply giving the land to the community is enough to ensure the garden lasts forever—no mention of risks or outside pressures.
Summarize what Text 2 confirms and what it adds
Text 2 reports a study that confirms community gardens "strengthened neighborhood ties and reduced residents' feelings of isolation," so it agrees that gardens create social bonds and have benefits. But it also says that in neighborhoods where property values rose, 41% of gardens were later converted into private developments. Dr. Lin comments that "communal enthusiasm alone cannot counteract market forces" and that "without legal protections, many gardens will disappear." So Text 2 adds an important warning: social commitment is not enough; external economic forces can close gardens unless there are legal protections.
Infer how Text 2 would respond to Text 1’s claim
Put the two texts together:
- Text 1: once the city allocates the lot, the garden will be maintained "indefinitely."
- Text 2: initial enthusiasm and social benefits are real, but many gardens still disappear due to market forces unless they have legal protections. So the Text 2 author would not totally reject Text 1 (since the benefits are real), but would say that allocation alone does not guarantee long-term success; additional protections are needed.
Match that combined view to the answer choices
Now compare this understanding to the choices:
- Any answer saying Text 2 completely rejects the idea that gardens build social bonds is wrong, because the study confirms those benefits.
- Any answer saying Text 2 has no reservations about long-term success is wrong, because it emphasizes economic threats and the need for legal protections.
- Any answer about gardeners buying land themselves introduces ideas that never appear in Text 2. The only choice that reflects partial agreement (allocation matters) plus a warning about the need for extra protections against economic pressures is:
D) They would agree that initial allocation is vital but warn that additional safeguards are needed to shield gardens from future economic pressures.