Hectares Versus Heat
When a city plants trees, the benefits are usually tallied in the currency of temperature: a mature canopy can lower surface readings on a summer afternoon by several degrees. That figure travels well in council chambers, but it is a poor guide to policy. Shade is not evenly distributed, and the streets that most need it - wide, treeless and lined with asphalt - are precisely where roots have least room and where watering costs most. Meanwhile, the neighbourhoods that already have canopy tend to have the loudest residents and the fastest approvals for new planting. The result is a programme that reports success in hectares while leaving the hottest blocks untouched. None of this argues against planting; it argues against measuring the programme by what it plants rather than by where the heat actually falls.
1. State the passage's central claim and name the inference a careless reader is most likely to draw that the passage does not support.
Read the worked answer
Central claim: the standard success metric - area planted - systematically misdirects planting toward streets that already have canopy, because the places that need shade most are the hardest and costliest to plant. The recommendation is a change of metric (measure heat relief delivered where heat is worst), not a change of activity.
The tempting overreach is 'the author opposes tree planting' or 'the author thinks canopy does not cool cities'. Both are contradicted in the text: the temperature effect is conceded in the first sentence, and the final clause explicitly denies the anti-planting reading ('None of this argues against planting'). The author is criticising a measurement choice, and a critic of measurement is not an opponent of the thing measured. A second, subtler overreach is to infer that residents of leafy neighbourhoods are acting in bad faith; the passage claims only that approvals are faster there, not why.
2. What does 'travels well' mean here, and what would be lost if it were read as 'is factually accurate'?
Read the worked answer
In context - 'that figure travels well in council chambers, but it is a poor guide to policy' - the phrase means the figure is portable and persuasive: easy to repeat, easy to remember, and readily accepted by an audience that wants a single number. It is a claim about rhetoric and reception, not about truth.
Reading it as 'is factually accurate' inverts the sentence. The author accepts the temperature figure as roughly true (that is granted in the same sentence) and then denies it is a good basis for policy: accurate on average, misleading about distribution. The 'but' sets persuasive appeal against policy usefulness, so the phrase must sit on the persuasion side of that contrast. That distinction matters for the argument, because if the figure were simply false the author would be attacking the evidence; instead the author is attacking what the evidence is used to justify.
3. Which single finding would most weaken the argument, and which plausible-sounding findings would not?
Read the worked answer
Most weakening: for this city, audited planting records show that new trees over the past five years went disproportionately to the blocks with the least existing canopy and the highest surface temperatures, with no bias toward neighbourhoods that complained loudest. That removes the mechanism the author relies on and shows the hectare metric and the equity outcome can coincide.
Not weakening, though they sound relevant: evidence that trees cool streets (the author concedes it); evidence that the programme is popular (popularity says nothing about where planting happens); evidence that watering is expensive (the author asserts that already); evidence that some leafy neighbourhoods also lack shade on particular streets (an exception, not a refutation of the pattern). The distinction is that only the first finding attacks the causal claim about where planting goes, which is the load-bearing premise.