Loading...
In Masonville few streets currently have shade trees. The city's newly adopted goal is to have shade trees on all streets that are wide enough. The trees will cool summer temperatures in the city as well as improve its appearance. Because statistics show that \(\frac{3}{4}\) trees planted in the city die before maturity, the city will plant a tree every \(10\) feet in order to achieve an eventual spacing of \(30\) to \(50\) feet between trees.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the city's plan depends?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In Masonville few streets currently have shade trees. |
|
| The city's newly adopted goal is to have shade trees on all streets that are wide enough. |
|
| The trees will cool summer temperatures in the city as well as improve its appearance. |
|
| Because statistics show that three of every four trees planted in the city die before maturity, the city will plant a tree every ten feet in order to achieve an eventual spacing of 30 to 50 feet between trees. |
|
The argument starts by showing us the current problem (few shade trees), then tells us the city's goal (trees on all suitable streets), explains why this goal matters (cooling and appearance), and finally describes their specific strategy to achieve it (planting extra trees to account for deaths).
The city will plant trees every ten feet to eventually achieve proper spacing of 30 to 50 feet between mature trees.
This is a plan-based argument where the conclusion (planting strategy) logically follows from the premises: if 75% of trees die and we want final spacing of 30-50 feet, then we need to plant much closer together initially. The argument assumes this math will work out and that the survival rate will remain consistent.
Assumption - We need to find statements that MUST be true for the city's plan to work. These are unstated beliefs the argument relies on.
The argument makes precise quantitative claims: 75% tree death rate, planting every 10 feet, achieving 30-50 feet spacing. We need to focus on what mathematical and logical assumptions make this plan viable.
For assumption questions, we identify ways the conclusion could fail while respecting the given facts. The city's plan assumes their math works out and that certain conditions will hold true. We'll look for gaps between what they state and what they need to assume for success.
This suggests the new shade trees are hardier than previously planted trees. However, the argument already incorporates the 75% mortality rate into their planning strategy. Whether these trees are hardier than past trees doesn't matter - the city is planning based on existing mortality statistics, not hoping for better survival rates.
This compares the width of current tree-lined streets to planned streets. The argument doesn't require any relationship between existing tree-lined streets and new ones. The city is simply planning to plant on all streets that are 'wide enough,' regardless of what currently exists elsewhere.
This discusses mortality rates outside the city versus inside the city. The city's plan only concerns trees planted within city limits, so the survival rate of trees planted outside the city is irrelevant to their urban planning strategy.
This addresses whether growing conditions vary significantly across different districts within the city. The city's plan assumes they can use one uniform strategy (planting every 10 feet) across all suitable streets to achieve consistent final spacing. If mortality rates varied dramatically by district due to different growing conditions, this uniform approach wouldn't work. Some areas might end up with too few survivors while others might have overcrowding. For the plan to succeed, growing conditions must be relatively consistent citywide.
This discusses whether street width affects temperature independent of trees. This is irrelevant to the city's tree-planting strategy. The argument focuses on achieving proper tree spacing and survival, not on the relationship between street width and temperature.