Read the passage and answer the question.
In discussions of urban heat, policymakers often focus on citywide averages, yet residents experience temperature at street level, where shade, pavement, and building height matter. A recent analysis of three mid-sized cities combined satellite-derived surface temperatures with on-the-ground sensor readings and found that neighborhoods with similar average incomes could still differ by several degrees during summer afternoons. The discrepancy arose partly because satellite images capture roof and road surfaces more readily than air temperatures felt by pedestrians.
To address this mismatch, the researchers proposed a "thermal equity audit" that pairs remote sensing with walking-route measurements taken at the times when outdoor labor is most common. Critics of the proposal argue that such audits would be costly and would merely confirm what residents already know: that tree cover is unevenly distributed. But the researchers note that without standardized measurements, cities tend to invest in highly visible downtown cooling projects rather than in less conspicuous residential corridors.
Moreover, when the team piloted the audit in one city, they discovered that two neighborhoods with equal tree canopy percentages had different heat exposure because one had wider streets and more dark asphalt. This finding suggests that focusing solely on planting trees may overlook other design levers, such as reflective paving or altered traffic patterns. In short, a thermal equity audit is offered not as a substitute for residents' testimony but as a way to translate that testimony into comparable, budget-relevant metrics.
The primary function of the highlighted sentence is to:
- summarize the author's overall position by clarifying how the proposed audit complements, rather than replaces, experiential reports (correct answer)
- describe the pilot study's specific result that street width and asphalt color can affect heat exposure
- introduce the critics' main objection that the audits would be too expensive and redundant
- make a broad claim that all urban heat policies should prioritize downtown projects for political visibility
- provide new evidence that reflective paving always reduces neighborhood temperatures more effectively than trees do
Explanation: This question tests the function of a sentence within the passage's argument. Function refers to what role the sentence plays in developing the author's reasoning, not merely what information it contains. The highlighted sentence serves as a concluding statement that clarifies the relationship between the proposed thermal equity audit and residents' experiential knowledge. It directly addresses the critics' concern by positioning the audit as complementary to, rather than replacing, residents' testimony. The Aorrect answer (A) accurately captures this synthesizing and clarifying function. Option B incorrectly focuses on specific content from earlier in the passage rather than the sentence's argumentative role, demonstrating the common error of confusing what a sentence says with what it does rhetorically.