Question 9·Hard·Inferences
Environmental sociologist Dr. Devi contends that urban green spaces confer benefits only insofar as they are actively used by residents, rather than simply existing as picturesque scenery. She notes that municipal planners often overestimate the value of “showcase parks”—vast lawns visible from highway overpasses but difficult to access on foot—and underestimate the impact of modest pocket gardens woven into residential blocks. Dr. Devi praises a neighborhood initiative in Curitiba, Brazil, where vacant lots were converted into micro-parks with vegetable beds and benches, observing that within a year, residents reported lower stress levels and stronger social ties.
Based on Dr. Devi’s reasoning, which proposal for adding urban greenery would she be most likely to question?
For “most likely” inference questions, restate the author’s criterion as a simple test (here: usable by residents vs. scenic/inaccessible), then check each option for the specific features the author emphasizes. Prefer the choice that most directly reproduces the criticized features (high visibility + poor pedestrian access), not just a choice that sounds generally ‘nice’ or generally ‘green.’
Hints
Locate the author’s rule
Find the sentence that says green spaces help only when they are actively used rather than serving as scenery.
Use the “showcase park” description
What two features define the parks she criticizes? (Think: visibility from highways vs. difficulty reaching them on foot.)
Scan choices for the same pattern
Which option is mainly designed to be looked at by commuters and does not give residents an easy way to walk to and use the space?
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify Dr. Devi’s central criterion
Dr. Devi’s key claim is that green spaces confer benefits only when they are actively used by residents, not when they merely provide picturesque scenery.
Use her examples to define what she criticizes
She criticizes “showcase parks”: greenery that is highly visible (e.g., from highways) but difficult to access on foot. She praises small neighborhood micro-parks because residents can easily reach them and use them (benches, vegetable beds), producing measurable social and well-being benefits.
Turn the question into a checklist
She would be most likely to question a proposal that:
- Prioritizes visibility/aesthetics for passersby, and
- Does not provide easy, safe pedestrian access or opportunities for residents to use the space.
Evaluate each choice against the checklist
- Building a large formal park downtown...with entrances, paths, and seating: It is designed for walkable, on-site use, so it does not fit her main criticism.
- Providing grants...but limiting public access to scheduled volunteer hours: This still involves community engagement, but the restricted access makes the benefits less broadly tied to everyday resident use.
- Planting flowering trees...and adding protected sidewalks and frequent crosswalks: This explicitly builds pedestrian infrastructure so residents can reach and move through the greenery, moving it away from a pure “showcase” model.
- Planting continuous rows of flowering trees...visible to commuters but lacking pedestrian walkways: This is primarily greenery meant to be seen, not used, and it is hard to access on foot—matching the type she says planners overvalue.
Therefore, the proposal she would be most likely to question is planting continuous rows of flowering trees along major boulevards that are highly visible to commuters but lack pedestrian walkways.