The mature beech-oak-ash-ailanthus forest will be mowed down [by glaciers]. The four giant mounds of entombed garbage at the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island will be flattened, their vast accumulation of stubborn PVC plastic and of one of the most durable human creations of all—glass—ground to powder.Which claim does the excerpt most clearly support?A.Nature acts swiftly to reclaim abandoned urban areas.B.The human impact on the environment is permanent.C.Without humanity's presence, New York City would quickly deteriorate.D.Nature is ultimately more powerful than humans.SUBMITarrow_backPREVIOUS

Which claim would Alan Weisman most likely agree with?A.New York City lacks a viable ecosystem for supporting life.B.Nature is more powerful than it at first appears.C.People have almost no real effect on the environment.D.Nature will never recover from humanity's destructiveness.SUBMITarrow_backPREVIOUS

he notion that someday nature could swallow whole something so colossal and concrete as a modern city doesn't slide easily into our imaginations. The sheer titanic presence of a New York City resists efforts to picture it wasting away. The events of September 2001 showed only what human beings with explosive hardware can do, not crude processes like erosion or rot. . . . Nevertheless, the time it would take nature to rid itself of what urbanity has wrought may be less than we might suspect.Which idea is repeated more than once in the excerpt?A.Nature conquering a whole city is hard to imagine.B.The September 11 attacks demonstrate humanity's destructiveness.C.The time nature would need to reclaim the city is very short.D.Explosive hardware and erosion and rot are similar processes.

Read this excerpt from Alan Weisman's "The City Without Us":"When this pump facility shuts down," says [Paul] Schuber, "in half an hour water reaches a level where trains can't pass anymore."Which claim does the excerpt most clearly support?A.Without humanity's presence, New York City would quickly deteriorate.B.Natural disasters will ultimately lead to humanity's downfall.C.The human impact on the environment is permanent.D.Cities provide ecosystems just like forests and deserts.

Which claim would Alan Weisman most likely agree with?A.Nature will never recover from humanity's destructiveness.B.People have almost no real effect on the environment.C.Humanity has come to rival nature in its power over Earth.D.The human impact on the environment is long lasting but ultimately temporary.SUBMITarrow_backPREVIOUS

Read this passage from "The City Without Us":The notion that someday nature could swallow whole something so colossal and concrete as a modern city doesn't slide easily into our imaginations. The sheer titanic presence of a New York City resists efforts to picture it wasting away. The events of September 2001 showed only what human beings with explosive hardware can do, not crude processes like erosion or rot. . . . Nevertheless, the time it would take nature to rid itself of what urbanity has wrought may be less than we might suspect.Why does the author most likely emphasize the size of New York City?A.To contrast the city with the much smaller ecosystems that existed before itB.To show that it's actually quite small compared to nature and the ecosystemC.To imply that New York City comprises its own self-contained ecosystemD.To suggest that humanity's mark on the environment is irreversibleSUBMITarrow_backPREVIOUS