Network theorists attempt to illustrate the social situation of individuals through the observation of their relationships with other people. They note relationships that individuals have with one another and use statistical measures in order to visualize them. Network analysts describe the relationships between individuals and use this information in order to make inferences and conclusions pertaining to the group based upon its observed dynamics. 

There has been debate over the importance of weak and strong ties in regard to an individual’s social situation. Network theorists have described a tie as a relationship between individuals that is characterized by four main components: time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services (i.e. “if you scratch my back, then I’ll scratch yours”). In network sociology, a weak tie is defined as local bridges between two disparate social groups. Some sociologists have argued that weak ties have a greater impact on an individual’s social capital because they are exposed to a group of individuals that are not part of their immediate social network. On the other hand, network theorists have argued that the importance of strong ties has been largely ignored. Sociologists have argued that these tight in-group relations between individuals of social groups are imperative for the transmission of information.

This theory was studied by observing employees in Silicon Valley that were attempting to unionize. Network theorists had individuals in the company write down two names: the name of the person they get advice from (i.e. a weak tie) and the person they consider as a friend (i.e. strong tie). The theorists attempted to understand the differences between whom individuals interact with at work and whom they choose to spend time with outside of the company’s walls. This distinction illustrates the difference between weak and strong ties—that is advice networks at work and friendship networks that extended beyond the physical space of the corporation. Using this information, the researchers were able to create network sociograms that depicted both the friendship and advisory networks of the company.

While sociologists were investigating this information, they were able to observe and apply their data to an attempt to unionize at the company. This group of employees’ attempt to unionize failed and the sociologists were able to use their network data to explain this phenomenon. They concluded that the unionization attempt failed because, while the individuals that were spearheading it were influential in the advice network, they lacked the strong ties in the friends network necessary to form the union. Specifically they did not have ties to influential members of the corporation (i.e. bosses and members of the board). Without the support of influential strong ties in their immediate social networks these individuals were unable to properly form a union. In other words, weak ties in the advisory network introduced them to individuals of power; however, their inability to form strong, friendship bonds with them detrimentally affected their attempts to form a union. 

The passage and the figures are in agreement that strong ties have the ability to transmit information effectively within a social network such as a company. They also agree that these ties can aid in the development of friendship bonds with individuals of power. 

According to the graph of advice networks, which group is most likely to seek advice from members outside their immediate network of associations?

Network theorists attempt to illustrate the social situation of individuals through the observation of their relationships with other people. They note relationships that individuals have with one another and use statistical measures in order to visualize them. Network analysts describe the relationships between individuals and use this information in order to make inferences and conclusions pertaining to the group based upon its observed dynamics. 

There has been debate over the importance of weak and strong ties in regard to an individual’s social situation. Network theorists have described a tie as a relationship between individuals that is characterized by four main components: time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services (i.e. “if you scratch my back, then I’ll scratch yours”). In network sociology, a weak tie is defined as local bridges between two disparate social groups. Some sociologists have argued that weak ties have a greater impact on an individual’s social capital because they are exposed to a group of individuals that are not part of their immediate social network. On the other hand, network theorists have argued that the importance of strong ties has been largely ignored. Sociologists have argued that these tight in-group relations between individuals of social groups are imperative for the transmission of information.

This theory was studied by observing employees in Silicon Valley that were attempting to unionize. Network theorists had individuals in the company write down two names: the name of the person they get advice from (i.e. a weak tie) and the person they consider as a friend (i.e. strong tie). The theorists attempted to understand the differences between whom individuals interact with at work and whom they choose to spend time with outside of the company’s walls. This distinction illustrates the difference between weak and strong ties—that is advice networks at work and friendship networks that extended beyond the physical space of the corporation. Using this information, the researchers were able to create network sociograms that depicted both the friendship and advisory networks of the company.

While sociologists were investigating this information, they were able to observe and apply their data to an attempt to unionize at the company. This group of employees’ attempt to unionize failed and the sociologists were able to use their network data to explain this phenomenon. They concluded that the unionization attempt failed because, while the individuals that were spearheading it were influential in the advice network, they lacked the strong ties in the friends network necessary to form the union. Specifically they did not have ties to influential members of the corporation (i.e. bosses and members of the board). Without the support of influential strong ties in their immediate social networks these individuals were unable to properly form a union. In other words, weak ties in the advisory network introduced them to individuals of power; however, their inability to form strong, friendship bonds with them detrimentally affected their attempts to form a union. 

The passage and the figures are in agreement that strong ties have the ability to transmit information effectively within a social network such as a company. They also agree that these ties can aid in the development of friendship bonds with individuals of power. 

Identify the best comparison between the sociogram and the bar graph.

Adapted from The Effects of Cross & Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom by Charles Darwin (1876)

As it is impossible to exclude such minute pollen-carrying insects as Thrips, flowers which it was intended to fertilise with their own pollen may sometimes have been afterwards crossed with pollen brought by these insects from another flower on the same plant; but as we shall hereafter see, a cross of this kind does not produce any effect, or at most only a slight one. When two or more plants were placed near one another under the same net, as was often done, there is some real though not great danger of the flowers which were believed to be self-fertilised being afterwards crossed with pollen brought by Thrips from a distinct plant. I have said that the danger is not great because I have often found that plants which are self-sterile, unless aided by insects, remained sterile when several plants of the same species were placed under the same net. If, however, the flowers which had been presumably self-fertilised by me were in any case afterwards crossed by Thrips with pollen brought from a distinct plant, crossed seedlings would have been included amongst the self-fertilised; but it should be especially observed that this occurrence would tend to diminish and not to increase any superiority in average height, fertility, etc., of the crossed over the self-fertilised plants.

As the flowers which were crossed were never castrated, it is probable or even almost certain that I sometimes failed to cross-fertilise them effectually, and that they were afterwards spontaneously self-fertilised. This would have been most likely to occur with dichogamous species, for without much care it is not easy to perceive whether their stigmas are ready to be fertilised when the anthers open. But in all cases, as the flowers were protected from wind, rain, and the access of insects, any pollen placed by me on the stigmatic surface whilst it was immature, would generally have remained there until the stigma was mature; and the flowers would then have been crossed as was intended. Nevertheless, it is highly probable that self-fertilised seedlings have sometimes by this means got included amongst the crossed seedlings. The effect would be, as in the former case, not to exaggerate but to diminish any average superiority of the crossed over the self-fertilised plants.

Errors arising from the two causes just named, and from others,—such as some of the seeds not having been thoroughly ripened, though care was taken to avoid this error—the sickness or unperceived injury of any of the plants,—will have been to a large extent eliminated, in those cases in which many crossed and self-fertilised plants were measured and an average struck. Some of these causes of error will also have been eliminated by the seeds having been allowed to germinate on bare damp sand, and being planted in pairs; for it is not likely that ill-matured and well-matured, or diseased and healthy seeds, would germinate at exactly the same time. The same result will have been gained in the several cases in which only a few of the tallest, finest, and healthiest plants on each side of the pots were measured.

Kolreuter and Gartner have proved that with some plants several, even as many as from fifty to sixty, pollen-grains are necessary for the fertilisation of all the ovules in the ovarium. Naudin also found in the case of Mirabilis that if only one or two of its very large pollen-grains were placed on the stigma, the plants raised from such seeds were dwarfed. I was therefore careful to give an amply sufficient supply of pollen, and generally covered the stigma with it; but I did not take any special pains to place exactly the same amount on the stigmas of the self-fertilised and crossed flowers. After having acted in this manner during two seasons, I remembered that Gartner thought, though without any direct evidence, that an excess of pollen was perhaps injurious. It was therefore necessary to ascertain whether the fertility of the flowers was affected by applying a rather small and an extremely large quantity of pollen to the stigma. Accordingly a very small mass of pollen-grains was placed on one side of the large stigma in sixty-four flowers of Ipomoea purpurea, and a great mass of pollen over the whole surface of the stigma in sixty-four other flowers. In order to vary the experiment, half the flowers of both lots were on plants produced from self-fertilised seeds, and the other half on plants from crossed seeds. The sixty-four flowers with an excess of pollen yielded sixty-one capsules; and excluding four capsules, each of which contained only a single poor seed, the remainder contained on an average 5.07 seeds per capsule. The sixty-four flowers with only a little pollen placed on one side of the stigma yielded sixty-three capsules, and excluding one from the same cause as before, the remainder contained on an average 5.129 seeds. So that the flowers fertilised with little pollen yielded rather more capsules and seeds than did those fertilised with an excess; but the difference is too slight to be of any significance. On the other hand, the seeds produced by the flowers with an excess of pollen were a little heavier of the two; for 170 of them weighed 79.67 grains, whilst 170 seeds from the flowers with very little pollen weighed 79.20 grains. Both lots of seeds having been placed on damp sand presented no difference in their rate of germination. We may therefore conclude that my experiments were not affected by any slight difference in the amount of pollen used; a sufficiency having been employed in all cases.

Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Adapted from The Effects of Cross & Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom by Charles Darwin (1876)

As it is impossible to exclude such minute pollen-carrying insects as Thrips, flowers which it was intended to fertilise with their own pollen may sometimes have been afterwards crossed with pollen brought by these insects from another flower on the same plant; but as we shall hereafter see, a cross of this kind does not produce any effect, or at most only a slight one. When two or more plants were placed near one another under the same net, as was often done, there is some real though not great danger of the flowers which were believed to be self-fertilised being afterwards crossed with pollen brought by Thrips from a distinct plant. I have said that the danger is not great because I have often found that plants which are self-sterile, unless aided by insects, remained sterile when several plants of the same species were placed under the same net. If, however, the flowers which had been presumably self-fertilised by me were in any case afterwards crossed by Thrips with pollen brought from a distinct plant, crossed seedlings would have been included amongst the self-fertilised; but it should be especially observed that this occurrence would tend to diminish and not to increase any superiority in average height, fertility, etc., of the crossed over the self-fertilised plants.

As the flowers which were crossed were never castrated, it is probable or even almost certain that I sometimes failed to cross-fertilise them effectually, and that they were afterwards spontaneously self-fertilised. This would have been most likely to occur with dichogamous species, for without much care it is not easy to perceive whether their stigmas are ready to be fertilised when the anthers open. But in all cases, as the flowers were protected from wind, rain, and the access of insects, any pollen placed by me on the stigmatic surface whilst it was immature, would generally have remained there until the stigma was mature; and the flowers would then have been crossed as was intended. Nevertheless, it is highly probable that self-fertilised seedlings have sometimes by this means got included amongst the crossed seedlings. The effect would be, as in the former case, not to exaggerate but to diminish any average superiority of the crossed over the self-fertilised plants.

Errors arising from the two causes just named, and from others,—such as some of the seeds not having been thoroughly ripened, though care was taken to avoid this error—the sickness or unperceived injury of any of the plants,—will have been to a large extent eliminated, in those cases in which many crossed and self-fertilised plants were measured and an average struck. Some of these causes of error will also have been eliminated by the seeds having been allowed to germinate on bare damp sand, and being planted in pairs; for it is not likely that ill-matured and well-matured, or diseased and healthy seeds, would germinate at exactly the same time. The same result will have been gained in the several cases in which only a few of the tallest, finest, and healthiest plants on each side of the pots were measured.

Kolreuter and Gartner have proved that with some plants several, even as many as from fifty to sixty, pollen-grains are necessary for the fertilisation of all the ovules in the ovarium. Naudin also found in the case of Mirabilis that if only one or two of its very large pollen-grains were placed on the stigma, the plants raised from such seeds were dwarfed. I was therefore careful to give an amply sufficient supply of pollen, and generally covered the stigma with it; but I did not take any special pains to place exactly the same amount on the stigmas of the self-fertilised and crossed flowers. After having acted in this manner during two seasons, I remembered that Gartner thought, though without any direct evidence, that an excess of pollen was perhaps injurious. It was therefore necessary to ascertain whether the fertility of the flowers was affected by applying a rather small and an extremely large quantity of pollen to the stigma. Accordingly a very small mass of pollen-grains was placed on one side of the large stigma in sixty-four flowers of Ipomoea purpurea, and a great mass of pollen over the whole surface of the stigma in sixty-four other flowers. In order to vary the experiment, half the flowers of both lots were on plants produced from self-fertilised seeds, and the other half on plants from crossed seeds. The sixty-four flowers with an excess of pollen yielded sixty-one capsules; and excluding four capsules, each of which contained only a single poor seed, the remainder contained on an average 5.07 seeds per capsule. The sixty-four flowers with only a little pollen placed on one side of the stigma yielded sixty-three capsules, and excluding one from the same cause as before, the remainder contained on an average 5.129 seeds. So that the flowers fertilised with little pollen yielded rather more capsules and seeds than did those fertilised with an excess; but the difference is too slight to be of any significance. On the other hand, the seeds produced by the flowers with an excess of pollen were a little heavier of the two; for 170 of them weighed 79.67 grains, whilst 170 seeds from the flowers with very little pollen weighed 79.20 grains. Both lots of seeds having been placed on damp sand presented no difference in their rate of germination. We may therefore conclude that my experiments were not affected by any slight difference in the amount of pollen used; a sufficiency having been employed in all cases.

The most likely use of the dashes in the third paragraph is to

Gentrification is a social phenomenon that is characterized by community developments that, at times, displace lower income residents and small businesses. This process is often characterized by urban renewal or urban planning projects that are initiated by increased interest in a particular community. For example, low-income artisans such as artists and musicians may move into a lower income urban sector and utilize their talents to enhance its aesthetics. These early gentrifiers increase the community’s appearance and desirability, which attracts the attention of others who wish to further develop the area. Once urban development begins, it is common for these areas to experience an influx in wealthier inhabitants, which are often accompanied by upper-class business enterprises and increased property values. Once the gentrification process has reached this point, some of the earlier inhabitants or locals of the area may not be able to afford the increased cost of living in the community. This may result in population migration out of the community. As a result, the area’s social demographics change, which may be accompanied by conflict and controversy between immigrating and emigrating groups. A case study in Chicago’s Hyde Park will help to illustrate this process.

In the wake of WWII, labor-hungry war industries coupled with white out-migration (“white flight”) from Chicago’s inner city to the suburbs resulted in a dramatic shift in the city’s racial demographics between the years 1920 to 1950. In the early 1900s, the migration of southern blacks to Chicago’s south side south of 55^th Street created what became known as the Black Belt. This shift in racial demographics resulted in an increase of Chicago’s black population, from only 4 percent of the city’s population in 1920 to 23 percent in 1960. 

In the early 1950’s, the traditional Cottage Grove Avenue barrier that separated the Hyde Park-Kenwood area from the Black Belt was traversed by further black migrations, which resulted—in part—from the demolition of the nearby Lake Meadows Housing Development. The University of Chicago used political power to revitalize neighborhood areas that had deteriorated due to the construction of low-income housing developments nearby. Specifically, they sought to keep public housing out of the neighborhoods surrounding the University. The creation of the citizen-oriented Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference (HPKCC) in 1949 and the University of Chicago’s establishment of the Southeast Chicago Commission (SECC) in 1952 resulted in the implementation of a plan disguised as urban renewal, which attempted to slow the racial transformation of the area. In 1958, the Chicago City Council approved the Hyde Park-Kenwood Renewal Plan that racially segregated the area. The University sought to maintain a compatible environment for its operations and to preserve the racial homogeneity of the community; thus, the University, through the SECC, attempted to create an economically upgraded and predominantly white neighborhood. In other words, if the racial composition of the area could not be maintained, then upgraded class and socioeconomic statuses could prevent demographic changes by making it unaffordable to lower income groups. It is important to note that this contention and “renewal” of Hyde Park’s racial structure was not contained within this time span between the post war period and the Civil Rights Era in the 1960s. The 1970s brought similar racial strife and tension to Hyde Park in the wake of gentrifying forces.

A group of researchers observed gentrification in the Chicago suburbs. These researchers paid close attention to neighborhoods that were described as “up and coming.” They decided to use census data to look at two factors in these regions: population and median home values between the years of 2010 and 2015. The researchers planned to observe the changes contained in four census tracts: 8412, 6706, 6715, and 7107. The researchers hypothesized that they would observe population out-migrations and increased property values in areas that have been gentrified. The results of this data were tabulated in the following two figures.

Figure 1: Changes in population of observed census tracts between 2000 and 2015.

Figure 2: Changes in median home value of observed census tracts between 2000 and 2015.

What is the purpose of the underlined paragraph?

Gentrification is a social phenomenon that is characterized by community developments that, at times, displace lower income residents and small businesses. This process is often characterized by urban renewal or urban planning projects that are initiated by increased interest in a particular community. For example, low-income artisans such as artists and musicians may move into a lower income urban sector and utilize their talents to enhance its aesthetics. These early gentrifiers increase the community’s appearance and desirability, which attracts the attention of others who wish to further develop the area. Once urban development begins, it is common for these areas to experience an influx in wealthier inhabitants, which are often accompanied by upper-class business enterprises and increased property values. Once the gentrification process has reached this point, some of the earlier inhabitants or locals of the area may not be able to afford the increased cost of living in the community. This may result in population migration out of the community. As a result, the area’s social demographics change, which may be accompanied by conflict and controversy between immigrating and emigrating groups. A case study in Chicago’s Hyde Park will help to illustrate this process.

In the wake of WWII, labor-hungry war industries coupled with white out-migration (“white flight”) from Chicago’s inner city to the suburbs resulted in a dramatic shift in the city’s racial demographics between the years 1920 to 1950. In the early 1900s, the migration of southern blacks to Chicago’s south side south of 55^th Street created what became known as the Black Belt. This shift in racial demographics resulted in an increase of Chicago’s black population, from only 4 percent of the city’s population in 1920 to 23 percent in 1960. 

In the early 1950’s, the traditional Cottage Grove Avenue barrier that separated the Hyde Park-Kenwood area from the Black Belt was traversed by further black migrations, which resulted—in part—from the demolition of the nearby Lake Meadows Housing Development. The University of Chicago used political power to revitalize neighborhood areas that had deteriorated due to the construction of low-income housing developments nearby. Specifically, they sought to keep public housing out of the neighborhoods surrounding the University. The creation of the citizen-oriented Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference (HPKCC) in 1949 and the University of Chicago’s establishment of the Southeast Chicago Commission (SECC) in 1952 resulted in the implementation of a plan disguised as urban renewal, which attempted to slow the racial transformation of the area. In 1958, the Chicago City Council approved the Hyde Park-Kenwood Renewal Plan that racially segregated the area. The University sought to maintain a compatible environment for its operations and to preserve the racial homogeneity of the community; thus, the University, through the SECC, attempted to create an economically upgraded and predominantly white neighborhood. In other words, if the racial composition of the area could not be maintained, then upgraded class and socioeconomic statuses could prevent demographic changes by making it unaffordable to lower income groups. It is important to note that this contention and “renewal” of Hyde Park’s racial structure was not contained within this time span between the post war period and the Civil Rights Era in the 1960s. The 1970s brought similar racial strife and tension to Hyde Park in the wake of gentrifying forces.

A group of researchers observed gentrification in the Chicago suburbs. These researchers paid close attention to neighborhoods that were described as “up and coming.” They decided to use census data to look at two factors in these regions: population and median home values between the years of 2010 and 2015. The researchers planned to observe the changes contained in four census tracts: 8412, 6706, 6715, and 7107. The researchers hypothesized that they would observe population out-migrations and increased property values in areas that have been gentrified. The results of this data were tabulated in the following two figures.

Figure 1: Changes in population of observed census tracts between 2000 and 2015.

Figure 2: Changes in median home value of observed census tracts between 2000 and 2015.

Between the years of 1920 and 1960, the percentage of blacks that made up Chicago's population increased by what percent?

Gentrification is a social phenomenon that is characterized by community developments that, at times, displace lower income residents and small businesses. This process is often characterized by urban renewal or urban planning projects that are initiated by increased interest in a particular community. For example, low-income artisans such as artists and musicians may move into a lower income urban sector and utilize their talents to enhance its aesthetics. These early gentrifiers increase the community’s appearance and desirability, which attracts the attention of others who wish to further develop the area. Once urban development begins, it is common for these areas to experience an influx in wealthier inhabitants, which are often accompanied by upper-class business enterprises and increased property values. Once the gentrification process has reached this point, some of the earlier inhabitants or locals of the area may not be able to afford the increased cost of living in the community. This may result in population migration out of the community. As a result, the area’s social demographics change, which may be accompanied by conflict and controversy between immigrating and emigrating groups. A case study in Chicago’s Hyde Park will help to illustrate this process.

In the wake of WWII, labor-hungry war industries coupled with white out-migration (“white flight”) from Chicago’s inner city to the suburbs resulted in a dramatic shift in the city’s racial demographics between the years 1920 to 1950. In the early 1900s, the migration of southern blacks to Chicago’s south side south of 55^th Street created what became known as the Black Belt. This shift in racial demographics resulted in an increase of Chicago’s black population, from only 4 percent of the city’s population in 1920 to 23 percent in 1960. 

In the early 1950’s, the traditional Cottage Grove Avenue barrier that separated the Hyde Park-Kenwood area from the Black Belt was traversed by further black migrations, which resulted—in part—from the demolition of the nearby Lake Meadows Housing Development. The University of Chicago used political power to revitalize neighborhood areas that had deteriorated due to the construction of low-income housing developments nearby. Specifically, they sought to keep public housing out of the neighborhoods surrounding the University. The creation of the citizen-oriented Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference (HPKCC) in 1949 and the University of Chicago’s establishment of the Southeast Chicago Commission (SECC) in 1952 resulted in the implementation of a plan disguised as urban renewal, which attempted to slow the racial transformation of the area. In 1958, the Chicago City Council approved the Hyde Park-Kenwood Renewal Plan that racially segregated the area. The University sought to maintain a compatible environment for its operations and to preserve the racial homogeneity of the community; thus, the University, through the SECC, attempted to create an economically upgraded and predominantly white neighborhood. In other words, if the racial composition of the area could not be maintained, then upgraded class and socioeconomic statuses could prevent demographic changes by making it unaffordable to lower income groups. It is important to note that this contention and “renewal” of Hyde Park’s racial structure was not contained within this time span between the post war period and the Civil Rights Era in the 1960s. The 1970s brought similar racial strife and tension to Hyde Park in the wake of gentrifying forces.

A group of researchers observed gentrification in the Chicago suburbs. These researchers paid close attention to neighborhoods that were described as “up and coming.” They decided to use census data to look at two factors in these regions: population and median home values between the years of 2010 and 2015. The researchers planned to observe the changes contained in four census tracts: 8412, 6706, 6715, and 7107. The researchers hypothesized that they would observe population out-migrations and increased property values in areas that have been gentrified. The results of this data were tabulated in the following two figures.

Figure 1: Changes in population of observed census tracts between 2000 and 2015.

Figure 2: Changes in median home value of observed census tracts between 2000 and 2015.

Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Gentrification is a social phenomenon that is characterized by community developments that, at times, displace lower income residents and small businesses. This process is often characterized by urban renewal or urban planning projects that are initiated by increased interest in a particular community. For example, low-income artisans such as artists and musicians may move into a lower income urban sector and utilize their talents to enhance its aesthetics. These early gentrifiers increase the community’s appearance and desirability, which attracts the attention of others who wish to further develop the area. Once urban development begins, it is common for these areas to experience an influx in wealthier inhabitants, which are often accompanied by upper-class business enterprises and increased property values. Once the gentrification process has reached this point, some of the earlier inhabitants or locals of the area may not be able to afford the increased cost of living in the community. This may result in population migration out of the community. As a result, the area’s social demographics change, which may be accompanied by conflict and controversy between immigrating and emigrating groups. A case study in Chicago’s Hyde Park will help to illustrate this process.

In the wake of WWII, labor-hungry war industries coupled with white out-migration (“white flight”) from Chicago’s inner city to the suburbs resulted in a dramatic shift in the city’s racial demographics between the years 1920 to 1950. In the early 1900s, the migration of southern blacks to Chicago’s south side south of 55^th Street created what became known as the Black Belt. This shift in racial demographics resulted in an increase of Chicago’s black population, from only 4 percent of the city’s population in 1920 to 23 percent in 1960. 

In the early 1950’s, the traditional Cottage Grove Avenue barrier that separated the Hyde Park-Kenwood area from the Black Belt was traversed by further black migrations, which resulted—in part—from the demolition of the nearby Lake Meadows Housing Development. The University of Chicago used political power to revitalize neighborhood areas that had deteriorated due to the construction of low-income housing developments nearby. Specifically, they sought to keep public housing out of the neighborhoods surrounding the University. The creation of the citizen-oriented Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference (HPKCC) in 1949 and the University of Chicago’s establishment of the Southeast Chicago Commission (SECC) in 1952 resulted in the implementation of a plan disguised as urban renewal, which attempted to slow the racial transformation of the area. In 1958, the Chicago City Council approved the Hyde Park-Kenwood Renewal Plan that racially segregated the area. The University sought to maintain a compatible environment for its operations and to preserve the racial homogeneity of the community; thus, the University, through the SECC, attempted to create an economically upgraded and predominantly white neighborhood. In other words, if the racial composition of the area could not be maintained, then upgraded class and socioeconomic statuses could prevent demographic changes by making it unaffordable to lower income groups. It is important to note that this contention and “renewal” of Hyde Park’s racial structure was not contained within this time span between the post war period and the Civil Rights Era in the 1960s. The 1970s brought similar racial strife and tension to Hyde Park in the wake of gentrifying forces.

A group of researchers observed gentrification in the Chicago suburbs. These researchers paid close attention to neighborhoods that were described as “up and coming.” They decided to use census data to look at two factors in these regions: population and median home values between the years of 2010 and 2015. The researchers planned to observe the changes contained in four census tracts: 8412, 6706, 6715, and 7107. The researchers hypothesized that they would observe population out-migrations and increased property values in areas that have been gentrified. The results of this data were tabulated in the following two figures.

Figure 1: Changes in population of observed census tracts between 2000 and 2015.

Figure 2: Changes in median home value of observed census tracts between 2000 and 2015.

What is the main idea of the underlined paragraph?

Gentrification is a social phenomenon that is characterized by community developments that, at times, displace lower income residents and small businesses. This process is often characterized by urban renewal or urban planning projects that are initiated by increased interest in a particular community. For example, low-income artisans such as artists and musicians may move into a lower income urban sector and utilize their talents to enhance its aesthetics. These early gentrifiers increase the community’s appearance and desirability, which attracts the attention of others who wish to further develop the area. Once urban development begins, it is common for these areas to experience an influx in wealthier inhabitants, which are often accompanied by upper-class business enterprises and increased property values. Once the gentrification process has reached this point, some of the earlier inhabitants or locals of the area may not be able to afford the increased cost of living in the community. This may result in population migration out of the community. As a result, the area’s social demographics change, which may be accompanied by conflict and controversy between immigrating and emigrating groups. A case study in Chicago’s Hyde Park will help to illustrate this process.

In the wake of WWII, labor-hungry war industries coupled with white out-migration (“white flight”) from Chicago’s inner city to the suburbs resulted in a dramatic shift in the city’s racial demographics between the years 1920 to 1950. In the early 1900s, the migration of southern blacks to Chicago’s south side south of 55^th Street created what became known as the Black Belt. This shift in racial demographics resulted in an increase of Chicago’s black population, from only 4 percent of the city’s population in 1920 to 23 percent in 1960. 

In the early 1950’s, the traditional Cottage Grove Avenue barrier that separated the Hyde Park-Kenwood area from the Black Belt was traversed by further black migrations, which resulted—in part—from the demolition of the nearby Lake Meadows Housing Development. The University of Chicago used political power to revitalize neighborhood areas that had deteriorated due to the construction of low-income housing developments nearby. Specifically, they sought to keep public housing out of the neighborhoods surrounding the University. The creation of the citizen-oriented Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference (HPKCC) in 1949 and the University of Chicago’s establishment of the Southeast Chicago Commission (SECC) in 1952 resulted in the implementation of a plan disguised as urban renewal, which attempted to slow the racial transformation of the area. In 1958, the Chicago City Council approved the Hyde Park-Kenwood Renewal Plan that racially segregated the area. The University sought to maintain a compatible environment for its operations and to preserve the racial homogeneity of the community; thus, the University, through the SECC, attempted to create an economically upgraded and predominantly white neighborhood. In other words, if the racial composition of the area could not be maintained, then upgraded class and socioeconomic statuses could prevent demographic changes by making it unaffordable to lower income groups. It is important to note that this contention and “renewal” of Hyde Park’s racial structure was not contained within this time span between the post war period and the Civil Rights Era in the 1960s. The 1970s brought similar racial strife and tension to Hyde Park in the wake of gentrifying forces.

A group of researchers observed gentrification in the Chicago suburbs. These researchers paid close attention to neighborhoods that were described as “up and coming.” They decided to use census data to look at two factors in these regions: population and median home values between the years of 2010 and 2015. The researchers planned to observe the changes contained in four census tracts: 8412, 6706, 6715, and 7107. The researchers hypothesized that they would observe population out-migrations and increased property values in areas that have been gentrified. The results of this data were tabulated in the following two figures.

Figure 1: Changes in population of observed census tracts between 2000 and 2015.

Figure 2: Changes in median home value of observed census tracts between 2000 and 2015.

Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Gentrification is a social phenomenon that is characterized by community developments that, at times, displace lower income residents and small businesses. This process is often characterized by urban renewal or urban planning projects that are initiated by increased interest in a particular community. For example, low-income artisans such as artists and musicians may move into a lower income urban sector and utilize their talents to enhance its aesthetics. These early gentrifiers increase the community’s appearance and desirability, which attracts the attention of others who wish to further develop the area. Once urban development begins, it is common for these areas to experience an influx in wealthier inhabitants, which are often accompanied by upper-class business enterprises and increased property values. Once the gentrification process has reached this point, some of the earlier inhabitants or locals of the area may not be able to afford the increased cost of living in the community. This may result in population migration out of the community. As a result, the area’s social demographics change, which may be accompanied by conflict and controversy between immigrating and emigrating groups. A case study in Chicago’s Hyde Park will help to illustrate this process.

In the wake of WWII, labor-hungry war industries coupled with white out-migration (“white flight”) from Chicago’s inner city to the suburbs resulted in a dramatic shift in the city’s racial demographics between the years 1920 to 1950. In the early 1900s, the migration of southern blacks to Chicago’s south side south of 55^th Street created what became known as the Black Belt. This shift in racial demographics resulted in an increase of Chicago’s black population, from only 4 percent of the city’s population in 1920 to 23 percent in 1960. 

In the early 1950’s, the traditional Cottage Grove Avenue barrier that separated the Hyde Park-Kenwood area from the Black Belt was traversed by further black migrations, which resulted—in part—from the demolition of the nearby Lake Meadows Housing Development. The University of Chicago used political power to revitalize neighborhood areas that had deteriorated due to the construction of low-income housing developments nearby. Specifically, they sought to keep public housing out of the neighborhoods surrounding the University. The creation of the citizen-oriented Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference (HPKCC) in 1949 and the University of Chicago’s establishment of the Southeast Chicago Commission (SECC) in 1952 resulted in the implementation of a plan disguised as urban renewal, which attempted to slow the racial transformation of the area. In 1958, the Chicago City Council approved the Hyde Park-Kenwood Renewal Plan that racially segregated the area. The University sought to maintain a compatible environment for its operations and to preserve the racial homogeneity of the community; thus, the University, through the SECC, attempted to create an economically upgraded and predominantly white neighborhood. In other words, if the racial composition of the area could not be maintained, then upgraded class and socioeconomic statuses could prevent demographic changes by making it unaffordable to lower income groups. It is important to note that this contention and “renewal” of Hyde Park’s racial structure was not contained within this time span between the post war period and the Civil Rights Era in the 1960s. The 1970s brought similar racial strife and tension to Hyde Park in the wake of gentrifying forces.

A group of researchers observed gentrification in the Chicago suburbs. These researchers paid close attention to neighborhoods that were described as “up and coming.” They decided to use census data to look at two factors in these regions: population and median home values between the years of 2010 and 2015. The researchers planned to observe the changes contained in four census tracts: 8412, 6706, 6715, and 7107. The researchers hypothesized that they would observe population out-migrations and increased property values in areas that have been gentrified. The results of this data were tabulated in the following two figures.

Figure 1: Changes in population of observed census tracts between 2000 and 2015.

Figure 2: Changes in median home value of observed census tracts between 2000 and 2015.