Question 51·Hard·Text Structure and Purpose
Urban planner Lena Ortiz argues that cities often overestimate the economic benefits of hosting mega-events such as international sport tournaments. She notes that municipal projections typically focus on short-term hotel bookings and ignore long-term maintenance costs for newly built venues. In Montréal, for example, the stadium constructed for the 1976 Summer Games was not paid off until 2006, three decades after the final medal ceremony, and required millions of dollars in annual upkeep during that period. Ortiz concludes that city officials should give more weight to these deferred expenses when deciding whether to submit bids.
Which choice best describes the function of the underlined sentence in the passage?
For “function of a sentence” questions, read a bit above and below the sentence to grasp the author’s main claim. Then paraphrase the target sentence and ask how it helps: is it an example, explanation, contrast, concession, or conclusion? Finally, prefer choices that accurately describe the sentence’s role without exaggerating (e.g., turning one case into something “typical” or claiming it defines/explains something it only illustrates).
Hints
Zoom out to the author’s claim
Before worrying about the underlined sentence alone, make sure you understand Ortiz’s main criticism of cities’ economic projections. Is she focusing on benefits, costs, or something else?
Summarize the Montréal sentence
Restate the underlined sentence in your own simple language. Ask yourself: Does this example show something positive or negative about hosting mega-events?
Think about the role, not the details
Is the underlined sentence mainly serving as an example, offering a general benchmark, explaining why projections are made a certain way, or defining a term?
Check for claims of “in general” vs. “one example”
Some choices describe what is true for cities generally or claim the sentence explains reasons/definitions. Does the underlined sentence actually do that, or is it just one specific case?
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify Ortiz’s main point
Read the sentences before and after the underlined part to see the overall argument.
Ortiz argues that cities overestimate the economic benefits of mega-events because projections focus on short-term gains (like hotel bookings) and ignore long-term maintenance costs for new venues. She concludes that officials should consider these deferred expenses more carefully.
Paraphrase the underlined sentence
Now focus on what the underlined Montréal sentence actually says, in your own words.
It describes how Montréal’s stadium from the 1976 Summer Games:
- Was not fully paid off until 2006 (about 30 years later).
- Needed millions of dollars in upkeep each year during that time.
This is clearly about long-term financial burden, not short-term profits.
Connect the example to the argument’s purpose
Ask: How does this Montréal detail function within Ortiz’s argument?
- Ortiz has just said cities ignore long-term maintenance costs.
- The Montréal stadium, with decades of debt and huge upkeep costs, is a real-life instance of exactly that problem.
So the sentence serves as a specific example that supports her criticism by making it concrete.
Match the function to the correct choice
Now compare that function to the answer choices:
- Choice 1 claims the sentence offers a typical benchmark for cities in general, but the passage gives only one city’s experience.
- Choice 2 claims the sentence explains why projections emphasize hotel bookings, but it doesn’t discuss officials’ motives or reasons for the projections.
- Choice 3 claims the sentence defines “deferred expenses,” but it doesn’t give a definition; it provides a single illustrative case.
- Choice 4 correctly identifies the sentence as a concrete example illustrating the drawback Ortiz is emphasizing.
Therefore, the correct answer is: It provides a concrete case that illustrates the drawback Ortiz is emphasizing.