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 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?
o
a. to contrast the city with the much smaller ecosystems that!
existed before it
o
b. to suggest that humanity's mark on the environment is
irreversible

The correct answer is A) To contrast the city with the much smaller ecosystems that existed before it.

The author most likely emphasizes the size of New York City to contrast the city with the much smaller ecosystems that existed before it.

That is why the author writes: "...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..."

The author refers that so much damage has done to nature with all those steel and concrete used to build a huge city, in a place where once was threes, plants, greens, and natural habitat. He compares it with previous ecosystems that existed before. That is why the author reflects on the issue of rampant urbanization.

its b wells tried to fight lynching in the south by

what exactly is the question to this?