Climate researcher Dr. Ana Rivera argues that planting trees in urban areas is one of the most cost-effective strategies for reducing carbon dioxide levels. Trees absorb CO2 during photosynthesis and store carbon in their wood and roots.
Which data would most effectively support Rivera's claim about cost-effectiveness?
Trees provide shade that reduces cooling costs for nearby buildings
Urban forests are popular recreational destinations
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants convert sunlight to energy
Urban tree planting programs remove 4 tons of CO2 per 100 for carbon capture technology
Correct Answer: D
Choice D is the best answer. Direct cost-per-ton comparison proves trees are more cost-effective than alternatives.
- Context clues: Rivera claims trees are "most cost-effective."
- Evidence evaluation: 4 tons vs 1 ton per $100 quantifies the cost advantage.
- Verify: Comparing to another carbon reduction method proves relative effectiveness.
💡 Strategy: "Cost-effective" claims need dollar-per-outcome comparisons.
Choice A is incorrect because cooling cost savings don't measure carbon reduction. Choice B is incorrect because recreational value doesn't address cost-effectiveness. Choice C is incorrect because explaining photosynthesis doesn't prove cost-effectiveness.