- Emma's initial research question for a history project is: "How did the Great Migration affect Northern cities?" She reads 5 sources (a museum website, a textbook chapter, two scholarly articles, and a primary-source newspaper archive). Her notes show evidence about housing shortages, job opportunities, cultural institutions, and political organizing. She answers the initial question with a paragraph that explains these effects and cites multiple sources.
Which follow-up question best shows a related, focused question that could lead to deeper research?
Answer: How did the Great Migration affect housing segregation policies in Northern cities between 1916 and 1930?
The best follow-up grows directly out of Emma's findings. She gathered evidence about housing shortages, so a question about how the Great Migration affected housing segregation policies in Northern cities between 1916 and 1930 zooms in on one finding, sets a clear time frame, and can be answered with real sources. That is exactly what a related, focused research question should do.
The question about human migration affecting cities all around the world drifts off Emma's actual topic and is far too broad to research in a focused way. The question about how population movements shaped every aspect of United States history is impossibly huge—no single project could cover 'every aspect' of history. The question asking whether the Great Migration was a good thing or a bad thing calls for an opinion rather than researchable facts, so it cannot deepen her evidence-based inquiry. Only the first option stays tied to her findings, narrows the topic, and remains something she can actually investigate.
- Maya is doing a 1–2 week research project for 7th grade on school schedules. Her initial question is: "How does starting middle school at 8:30 a.m. instead of 7:30 a.m. affect students' sleep and first-period attendance?" She uses 4 sources (a school district attendance report, a pediatric sleep organization article, a peer-reviewed study on teen sleep, and an interview with the assistant principal). She takes notes, compares findings across sources, and writes a short answer explaining that later start times are linked to more sleep and slightly improved attendance in first period. Which follow-up question is the most focused and clearly connected to what Maya learned?
Answer: How do later start times affect first-period attendance rates for 7th graders at Maya's school over one semester compared with the previous semester?
The best follow-up narrows Maya's findings to something she can actually investigate: comparing first-period attendance for 7th graders at her own school across two semesters. It stays tied to what she learned (later starts and attendance) and can be answered with school data. The question about the length of the school day and how happy or motivated students feel drifts to a new topic (schedule length and feelings) that Maya never researched. The question about how sleep affects grades for every middle school student across the country is far too broad and unmeasurable—she can't collect nationwide data in a 1–2 week project. The question about a teacher's strictness and whether students enjoy lessons is off-topic; it's about classroom mood, not start times or attendance. A strong follow-up question drills into a specific piece of the original findings and stays answerable through evidence.
- Chen researched desert animals for a week. His initial question was: "What adaptations help kangaroo rats conserve water?" He used 5 sources (two science websites from museums, a textbook chapter, a journal article summary, and a documentary transcript). He found that kangaroo rats get water from metabolism, have very efficient kidneys, and are active at night to reduce water loss. Which new question most clearly emerges from his findings and stays focused?
Answer: How do kangaroo rats' kidney structures compare with those of other desert rodents in reducing water loss?
The best follow-up question builds directly on what Chen actually found. He learned kangaroo rats have very efficient kidneys, so asking how their kidney structures compare with other desert rodents digs deeper into that exact finding, stays focused on water conservation, and can be answered with more research. The question about how all desert animals survive drops Chen's specific findings and becomes far too broad to research in a focused way. The question calling the kangaroo rat the "most interesting" rodent slips into personal opinion instead of building on evidence, so no research could truly settle it. The question about water shortages during past wars leaves the topic of animal adaptations entirely and studies human history instead. A strong new research question grows out of your findings, narrows in on one specific detail, and keeps a clear connection to your original topic.
- Carlos is doing a short research project on the 1918 influenza pandemic. His initial question is: "How did public health measures (like masking and school closures) affect infection rates in two U.S. cities in 1918?"
He reads 4 sources (CDC history page, a university archive article, a peer-reviewed historical study comparing cities, and digitized newspapers). However, his final write-up mostly discusses how vaccines work today and includes only one sentence about 1918 measures.
What is the main problem with Carlos's project based on the research standard of answering the initial question using evidence?
Answer: His findings drift away from the initial question, so his final answer does not address the specific 1918 city measures he set out to research.
The research standard says your final write-up should answer the question you started with, using evidence from your sources. Carlos asked how 1918 public health measures affected infection rates in two cities, but his write-up is mostly about how modern vaccines work, with only one sentence on 1918. That is exactly the problem in the best answer: his findings drift off topic, so he never actually answers his own question with evidence. The other choices misjudge his project. His topic was not too narrow—it was specific and researchable, and widening it to every disease in history would make it impossible to answer. Paraphrasing is perfectly acceptable in research; a project is not disqualified just because it lacks direct quotations. Comparing two cities is a strong, common research approach, not something the standard forbids. Each of these describes a rule that sounds official but is not real, while the correct choice names the actual failure: the answer must match the question.
- Amir is researching: "How do extreme weather events affect local infrastructure?" After reading 3 articles about hurricanes, he writes these new questions:
1) "How did Hurricane Sandy affect subway service restoration timelines in New York City compared with earlier major storms?"
2) "How has emergency shelter capacity in New York City changed since Hurricane Sandy?"
3) "How do flood-resistant road designs (like permeable pavement) change repair costs after heavy rainfall in coastal towns?"
4) "Which severe storms in history caused the most fear among the general public?"
Which choice best identifies the two new questions that are most related and researchable extensions of Amir's topic?
Answer: Questions 1 and 3, because both drill into specific infrastructure effects of severe weather
Amir's topic is how extreme weather affects local infrastructure, so the best follow-up questions stay focused on infrastructure and can be answered with research. The question about subway restoration timelines and the question about flood-resistant road repair costs both target concrete infrastructure impacts and solutions—each is specific, focused, and researchable, so this is the best pair.
The pair about emergency shelter capacity and public fear misses the mark: shelter capacity is more about human services than infrastructure, and a question about which storms caused the most fear is subjective and drifts away from infrastructure entirely.
The pair about subway restoration and shelter capacity is tempting because both involve New York City after Sandy, but shelter capacity shifts the focus toward emergency response rather than physical infrastructure.
The pair about road repair costs and public fear combines one strong infrastructure question with the fear question, which is too subjective and off-topic to research well. Effective follow-up questions keep your original focus while digging into specific, answerable details.
- Jordan researched why some middle schools start later than others. Initial question: "What factors lead districts to choose later middle school start times?" Research process: Jordan used 4 sources (district board meeting minutes, a transportation department memo, a news article about bus schedules, and a sleep research summary). Jordan's answer explains that bus routing for multiple school levels, after-school sports, and parent work schedules often influence decisions as much as sleep research. Jordan then wrote four possible new questions. Which new question is most relevant and would likely deepen the research without becoming too broad?
Answer: How do bus route constraints (number of buses and tiered schedules) affect start-time decisions in districts similar in size to Jordan's district?
The best follow-up question grows directly out of what the research already uncovered and stays narrow enough to actually answer. Jordan found that bus routing shaped start-time decisions, so asking how bus route constraints—number of buses and tiered schedules—affect start times in similar-sized districts drills deeper into a specific finding while staying focused and researchable.
The question about how teenagers' sleep has changed over the last hundred years worldwide drifts away from Jordan's topic (why districts choose start times) and is far too broad to research well. The question about school building design and schedules throughout history sounds detailed but leaves Jordan's actual finding behind and spreads across all of history, so it can't deepen this project. The question about after-school sports connects to a real finding, but Jordan already knows sports matter; it repeats a known factor instead of narrowing into a specific, comparable detail the way the bus-route question does, so it deepens the research less. Strong follow-up questions build on a specific finding, narrow the focus, and keep a clear tie to the original topic.
- Sofia is researching school start times for a health unit. Her initial question is: "Why do some middle schools start later than others in the same state?"
Her research process: she reads one blog post, skims it quickly, and then writes an answer mostly based on her own opinion about what she thinks schools "should" do. She does not look up district policies, transportation schedules, or sleep research.
Which evaluation best describes Sofia's research process in terms of conducting a short research project?
Answer: Not effective: she used too few sources, did not analyze evidence, and her answer is not supported by research.
The best answer says the process was not effective because Sofia used too few sources, did not analyze evidence, and based her answer on opinion instead of research. A short research project needs multiple reliable sources, careful reading, and a conclusion supported by that evidence—Sofia skipped all of these and never checked district policies, transportation schedules, or sleep research.
The choice praising the blog post is wrong because one skimmed source plus personal opinion cannot verify or support a real conclusion. The choice claiming she met the main goals is wrong because narrowing a question and stating an opinion are not enough; the true goal is answering with analyzed evidence, which she never gathered. The choice that focuses only on missing follow-up questions is wrong because, while good research can spark new questions, that is a minor issue compared to her failure to use and analyze sources at all. Only the answer naming her core problems—too few sources, no evidence analysis, and an unsupported answer—correctly evaluates her process.
- Maya is doing a 1-week research project for 7th grade science. Her initial question is: "What adaptations help desert animals conserve water?" She uses 4 sources (a library book on desert ecosystems, a National Park Service article, a museum website, and a peer-reviewed journal summary). She takes notes comparing adaptations (kidney function, nocturnal behavior, waxy skin, burrowing) and writes a paragraph answering the question with evidence.
After finishing, she writes these possible follow-up questions:
1) "How does the kangaroo rat's kidney structure reduce water loss compared with other rodents?"
2) "Are deserts the coolest biomes?"
3) "How do rising temperatures change the times of day desert animals are active?"
4) "Why are animals interesting?"
Which set best represents related, focused, researchable new questions that emerge from Maya's research?
Answer: Questions 1 and 3, because they build directly on desert water-saving adaptations and can be researched.
The best follow-up questions grow out of what Maya actually studied and stay focused enough to research with evidence. The pairing of the kangaroo rat's kidney question and the temperature-and-activity question does exactly that: one drills deeper into a water-saving adaptation she found, and the other extends her behavior findings to a new, researchable factor.
The choice praising the "deserts coolest" and "why animals interesting" pair is wrong because those are vague opinion questions—there is no evidence to research and they don't build on her findings. The pair combining "deserts coolest" with the temperature question fails because the "coolest biome" question is an unresearchable opinion, so the set is not fully focused, even though one question is strong. The pair combining the kidney question with "why animals interesting" also fails: "why are animals interesting" is too broad and opinion-based to research, so it doesn't count as a focused, researchable question that emerged from her work. Strong follow-up questions are specific, tied to her research, and answerable with evidence.
- Yuki is researching how music streaming has changed the way artists earn money. She finds 5 sources and takes notes, but her final paragraph only says: "Streaming is popular and people like it." She does not use evidence about earnings, payments per stream, or revenue sources. Which evaluation of Yuki's project is most accurate?
Answer: Her research needs improvement because her answer does not address her initial question with evidence from her sources.
Yuki asked a focused question about how streaming changed artist earnings, but her final paragraph only says streaming is popular and liked. Good research means using your sources to answer the question you actually asked. The best evaluation points out that her answer never addresses earnings with evidence from her five sources—she gathered information but never used it to respond to her question. The choice saying her research succeeds is wrong because a comment about popularity does not answer a question about money; those are different topics. The choice calling the project complete is wrong because finding sources and taking notes is only part of research—you still have to synthesize that evidence into an answer, which she never did. The choice saying her question is too broad is wrong because 'how has streaming changed artist earnings' is already specific and researchable; the problem is her answer, not her question.
- Jamal must choose one research question for a 2-week social studies project about school schedules. He will need to find 3–5 sources and write an evidence-based answer.
Which question is the most focused and researchable?
Answer: How do later start times affect students' sleep duration and attendance in U.S. districts that changed schedules since 2010?
The strongest research question names exactly what to study and where to look: it asks how later start times affect sleep duration and attendance in U.S. districts that changed schedules since 2010. That is specific, measurable, and bounded, so Jamal can find 3–5 sources with real data and build an evidence-based answer.
The question about why schools scheduled their days the way they have is too broad and vague—it has no clear focus, time frame, or measurable outcome, so it can't be answered from a few sources.
The question asking whether everyone should agree later times are the better, smarter choice is an opinion prompt, not a research question; it asks readers to take a side rather than to gather evidence.
The question about the single best schedule for every student everywhere is impossibly broad—no set of sources could prove one schedule works for all ages, needs, and locations, so it can't be researched.
A good research question tells you what to measure, who to study, and when or where—so evidence can actually answer it.
- Yuki is researching renewable energy for a 7th-grade science project. She wants a question that will allow multiple avenues of exploration (technology, cost, environment) while staying focused.
Which question better guides a short research project?
Answer: How did installing solar panels on public schools in one U.S. district affect electricity costs and carbon emissions over three years?
The question about solar panels on schools in one district, measuring electricity costs and carbon emissions over three years, is the best guide. It is specific enough to research with real sources, yet it opens several angles: how the panels work (technology), how much money was saved (cost), and how emissions changed (environment). That balance is exactly what a short project needs.
The question asking what energy is, why people need it, and how humans used energy across all of history is far too broad—you could never finish researching it in a short project. The question asking whether solar is best or clearly worse than every other option calls for an opinion, not evidence you can gather and cite. The question about whether the sun is important and where you would rather live drifts into personal preference and never connects to renewable energy you could actually investigate. Only one question stays focused while still allowing multiple research paths.
- Keisha researched the impact of banning single-use plastic bags in a city. Her initial question was: "What happened to plastic waste after City X banned plastic bags?" She used 4 sources (city council report, local newspaper data story, a university study, and a waste management company FAQ), took notes, and wrote that bag waste decreased but some people switched to thicker trash bags. Which set of new questions is the best example of strong, related follow-up questions that could lead to deeper research?
Answer: Did the ban reduce total plastic waste by weight at City X's landfill over the next year, and did sales of thicker trash bags increase during the same period?
The best follow-up questions grow directly out of what Keisha already found and can be answered with real data. She learned that bag waste dropped but people switched to thicker trash bags, so asking whether total waste dropped by weight and whether thicker-bag sales rose builds on both findings, stays focused on City X, and seeks measurable evidence. That is exactly how good research deepens.
The questions about how plastic pollution affects the whole planet are too broad—they leave Keisha's specific topic behind and could never be answered with her four sources. The questions asking whether bags are simply good or bad, and whether everyone should agree they are completely bad, are too simplistic and opinion-based; research needs measurable evidence, not a yes/no verdict. The questions about how people felt emotionally and whether residents like reusable bags shift to personal opinions instead of following the waste data she actually gathered, so they don't deepen her original investigation. Only the questions about landfill weight and thicker-bag sales stay specific, related, and researchable.
- Yuki researches: "How does plastic pollution affect marine animals?" She reads 3 credible sources and answers with evidence about ingestion and entanglement. Then she writes four possible follow-up questions:
A) "How does microplastic ingestion affect the growth rate of juvenile sea turtles?"
B) "How does plastic entanglement affect marine animal populations overall?"
C) "Why do people keep using so much harmful plastic packaging?"
D) "How does air pollution affect the health of city residents?"
Which choice identifies the best single follow-up question for deeper, related research?
Answer: A
The strongest follow-up drills deeper into a specific finding from Yuki's research. The question about how microplastic ingestion affects the growth rate of juvenile sea turtles builds directly on her evidence about ingestion, narrows to one measurable effect (growth rate) and one specific group (juvenile sea turtles), and can be answered with scientific data.
The question about how entanglement affects marine animal populations overall stays on topic, but 'populations overall' is too broad to explore deeply—good follow-ups get more focused, not more general.
The question about why people keep using harmful plastic packaging shifts away from marine animals toward human behavior and invites opinion rather than an evidence-based answer, so it doesn't deepen her original research.
The question about how air pollution affects city residents changes the subject entirely—air pollution and city residents are a different topic from plastic pollution and marine animals.
A good follow-up question keeps your topic, sharpens your focus, and can still be answered with evidence. Only the first option does all three.
- Emma completed a short research project about coral reefs. Her initial question was: "How does ocean warming contribute to coral bleaching, and what are two documented impacts on reef ecosystems?"
Research process: She used 5 sources (NOAA, National Geographic, a marine science textbook chapter, a peer-reviewed article summary, and a university oceanography page). She took notes, grouped evidence into causes and impacts, and answered her question with specific examples (temperature stress, symbiotic algae loss, reduced fish habitat).
Emma's follow-up questions are:
1) "How do local stressors (pollution and overfishing) interact with warming to affect bleaching severity in one reef region?"
2) "What reef restoration methods (like coral gardening) have shown measurable success in the Caribbean since 2010?"
3) "Will coral reefs definitely disappear soon?"
4) "What is the biggest ocean?"
Which option best evaluates whether Emma is generating additional related, focused questions that allow multiple avenues of exploration?
Answer: Questions 1 and 2 are strong because they build from her findings and stay focused and researchable; questions 3 and 4 are weak because one seeks a yes-no prediction and one drifts off-topic.
The best follow-up questions grow out of what a researcher already discovered and open new, investigable ground. Since Emma found that warming causes bleaching with specific impacts, asking how pollution and overfishing interact with warming, and which restoration methods have worked in the Caribbean, both drill deeper and stay focused and researchable. That makes the first option correct.
The option praising questions 3 and 4 for being broad confuses breadth with quality: "Will reefs definitely disappear soon?" demands an absolute yes-no prediction, and "What is the biggest ocean?" is off-topic, so neither opens real exploration. The option calling all four strong assumes any mention of oceans or reefs makes a question relevant, but question 4 names neither and does not build on her findings. The option favoring only question 4 gets the standard backward: strong research questions should open investigation and invite analysis, not be chosen because they are quick to finish with one fact.
- Riley is researching how social media affects sleep in teens. Her initial question is: "How does nighttime social media use affect sleep duration in teens ages 13–15?"
She wants to revise the question to make it more researchable for a 1–2 week project using 3–5 sources and possibly a small school survey.
Which revision is the best improvement?
Answer: How many minutes of social media use in the hour before bedtime is linked to changes in sleep duration for students ages 13–15 at our school?
The best revision narrows the topic into something you could actually finish in one or two weeks with a few sources and a short school survey. It names a measurable variable (minutes of use), a specific time window (the hour before bedtime), a clear outcome (changes in sleep duration), and a manageable group (students ages 13–15 at your school). Those exact parameters make it easy to gather and compare data.
The revision about phones and social media affecting teenagers' overall health and daily habits everywhere is far too broad—you could never cover 'everywhere' or 'overall health' in a short project. The question comparing time on social media to other screen entertainment quietly changes the topic away from sleep, so it no longer answers Riley's actual purpose. The question about why teens enjoy social media more than earlier generations shifts to opinions and motivations rather than a measurable effect on sleep, and comparing generations would need historical data she can't easily collect. Only one choice keeps the original sleep focus while adding the specific, measurable limits that make research doable.
- Marcus is researching local water quality. His initial question is: "Is our creek healthy?" He collects one water sample, looks at one website, and then writes mostly about how fish are important. He never defines what "healthy" means (chemicals, biodiversity, bacteria, etc.). Which revision would make Marcus's research question more focused and researchable for a short project?
Answer: How do nitrate levels and macroinvertebrate diversity in our creek compare to state "healthy stream" benchmarks in spring?
A strong research question for a short project names measurable variables, sets a clear standard for comparison, and limits the scope so evidence can actually be collected. The question about nitrate levels and macroinvertebrate diversity compared to state "healthy stream" benchmarks in spring does all of this: it defines what "healthy" means (chemical and biological measures), gives a benchmark to compare against, and adds a timeframe—so Marcus knows exactly what data to gather. The question asking whether the creek has good water overall and is a nice place to spend time never defines "good," so it stays as vague as Marcus's original question. The question about how the creek makes nearby people feel and why they enjoy visiting measures opinions and feelings, not water quality, so it can't answer whether the creek is healthy. The question about which creek in the region is the very best asks for a subjective ranking with no measurable standard, so there's no evidence that could settle it. Only the benchmark question turns a fuzzy topic into something specific and researchable.
- Carlos is doing a short research project on technology use. He wants to study how social media affects teens. He writes two possible research questions.
Question 1: "How does daily social media use relate to sleep duration in 7th graders at my school?"
Question 2: "Is social media ruining society?"
Which statement best compares the two questions for a short research project that requires evidence and multiple sources?
Answer: Question 1 is better because it is specific, measurable, and can be answered using research and data.
Question 1 is the stronger research question because it names something specific (daily social media use), something measurable (sleep duration), and a clear group to study (7th graders at your school). That means Carlos can actually collect data and check it against multiple sources, then answer the question directly.
The choice praising Question 2 for covering a big, important topic misses the point: a topic being large and heavily argued does not make it researchable. "Is social media ruining society?" is too broad and too opinion-based to answer with evidence in a short project.
The choice saying both questions work equally well is wrong because mentioning the same subject is not the same as being focused. Question 2 is vague and unbounded, while Question 1 sets clear limits you can investigate.
The choice claiming Question 2's broad wording is an advantage has it backward. Wording so open that it points to "any part of the debate" gives Carlos no focus, so he cannot design a systematic search or reach an evidence-based answer. A good research question narrows the target instead of leaving it wide open.
- Riley is researching how social media affects sleep in teens. She writes two possible research questions:
Question 1: "How does using a phone in the hour before bedtime affect total sleep time for 12–14-year-olds?"
Question 2: "How has technology changed the world?"
She has 2 weeks and needs to use 3–5 sources and write an evidence-based answer. Which statement best compares the questions?
Answer: Question 1 is better because it is specific and researchable, and it directly guides which sources Riley should find.
The best answer is that Question 1 is stronger because it is specific and researchable and points Riley toward the sources she needs. It names a behavior (phone use), a time (the hour before bed), an outcome (total sleep time), and an age group (12–14-year-olds). With only two weeks and 3–5 sources, those clear limits tell her exactly what to look for.
The choice praising Question 2's wide scope has it backwards: too much freedom means no focus, and Riley could never cover 'how technology changed the world' with just a few sources. The choice saying both questions work equally well ignores that a huge topic cannot actually be answered well in two weeks with 3–5 sources—the size of the task matters, not just the number of sources. The choice claiming a broad topic makes a clear answer easier is also wrong: broad topics scatter your evidence, while a narrow, measurable question makes a focused evidence-based answer possible.
- Chen is doing a 1–2 week research project on plastic pollution. His initial question is: "How do microplastics enter freshwater lakes, and what are two common pathways in the Great Lakes region?"
After reading 5 sources (EPA page, NOAA explainer, a peer-reviewed study, a state environmental agency report, and a local newspaper investigation), he answers his initial question and then writes new questions:
A) "How effective are washing-machine microfiber filters at reducing microplastics in wastewater in Great Lakes cities?"
B) "What laws about plastic pellets (nurdles) have been proposed or passed in Great Lakes states since 2015?"
C) "How does plastic pollution affect the environment all over the world in general?"
D) "Which brands of plastic water bottles are the most popular to buy in stores today?"
Which option best identifies the two new questions that are both related to Chen's research and focused enough for further investigation?
Answer: A and B
The two strong follow-up questions are the one about washing-machine microfiber filters and the one about plastic pellet laws in Great Lakes states since 2015. Both grow directly from Chen's microplastics research and are narrow enough to investigate: one targets a specific solution in a specific place, and the other targets specific legislation in a specific region and timeframe. The question about how plastic pollution affects the environment worldwide is related to his topic but far too broad—it covers the entire planet and every kind of impact, so no short project could answer it. The question about which plastic water bottle brands are most popular to buy is focused, but it drifts to consumer shopping trends rather than building on what Chen learned about how microplastics enter lakes. Any pairing that includes one of these weaker questions cannot be the best answer, because a strong follow-up question must be both related to the research AND focused enough to investigate—so only the filter and pellet-law questions qualify.
- Keisha is researching: "What causes urban heat islands in cities?" She reads 3 credible sources (EPA page, a university article, and a science news report), takes notes on pavement, lack of trees, building materials, and waste heat from vehicles/AC. Her final answer explains the main causes and includes citations.
She proposes these follow-up questions:
A) "How does increasing tree canopy coverage by 10% in one neighborhood change average summer surface temperatures compared to a similar neighborhood without added trees?"
B) "How does the Earth's overall climate get warmer over many decades across the entire planet?"
C) "How do average summer temperatures vary between coastal cities and inland cities around the world?"
D) "How do cool roofs and reflective pavement compare in reducing nighttime air temperatures in dense urban areas?"
Which pair of follow-up questions are the best examples of related, focused questions that extend Keisha's research?
Answer: A and D
The strongest follow-up questions grow directly out of what Keisha already found and stay narrow enough to research. The tree-canopy question builds on her "lack of trees" finding and even sets a measurable comparison (a 10% increase versus no added trees). The cool-roofs-versus-reflective-pavement question builds on her notes about pavement and building materials, comparing two specific cooling solutions for nighttime temperatures. Together these two deepen her exact topic, so that pair is best.
The global-climate question is about why the whole planet warms over decades—a different, much broader topic than heat inside individual cities, so it drifts away from urban heat islands. The coastal-versus-inland question sounds related because it mentions city temperatures, but it studies geography and location rather than the causes Keisha investigated (pavement, trees, materials, waste heat), so it does not extend her research. Any pair containing one of these misses the mark, which is why the tree-canopy and cool-roofs pair is the only fully focused, related choice.
