Cities often treat street trees as decoration, something to be planted when budgets allow and felled when a road needs widening. Yet a mature canopy does measurable work. It lowers surface temperatures on hot afternoons by several degrees, intercepts rainwater that would otherwise overwhelm drains, and filters fine particles from traffic. These services rarely appear on a municipal balance sheet because no one sends an invoice for them. When a tree is removed, the loss shows up elsewhere: in higher electricity bills for cooling, in flood repairs, in hospital admissions during heatwaves. The cost is real but scattered, which is precisely why it is ignored. Valuing trees as infrastructure rather than ornament would change how such decisions are made. Which option best captures the essence of the paragraph?
Show the solutionSolution
Answer: B. Because the benefits of urban trees are scattered and never billed, cities undervalue them; treating trees as infrastructure would correct this.
- The paragraph moves from a mistaken view (trees as decoration) to the reason for it (their benefits are diffuse and unbilled) to a remedy (value them as infrastructure). Option B holds all three.
- Option A lists the benefits but turns the argument into advice about planting before heatwaves, which the paragraph never gives.
- Option C makes budgets the subject and claims a cause for rising bills; the paragraph is about trees, and the bills are only one place the hidden cost shows up.
- Option D introduces a young-versus-mature comparison that the paragraph does not make.