PrepTest 147, Section 3, Question 3
In the last half-century, firefighters in North America(454 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AHowever, if homes(18 more words not shown)
- BUnfortunately, until foresters(21 more words not shown)
- CBut even with(22 more words not shown)
- DYet, because smaller(24 more words not shown)
- EBut given the(21 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
The last paragraph proposes ways to reduce fuel, then explains the benefit: future wildfires should be easier to control and less damaging. A sensible next sentence should stay connected to that plan and its effects. It should not suddenly turn into a complaint about housing developments, industry profits, or political resistance.
What we’re looking for
We do not have to predict the exact sentence. We can predict its boundaries: keep developing the proposed response to dangerous fuel buildup. A qualification about how soon the benefits arrive would fit those boundaries.
Working the answers
- A
Housing near forests has not been part of the argument. This changes the subject to where people build and how to protect developed property.
- B
The opening already says foresters and ecologists increasingly recognize that excessive suppression can be harmful. We have no basis for predicting resistance because foresters fail to recognize the danger.
- CCorrect
This qualifies the promised benefits without changing the subject. The proposed work addresses accumulated fuel; the fact that it should eventually reduce danger need not mean the danger disappears immediately. A near-term warning can therefore qualify the longer-term benefit without rejecting the plan.
- D
Smaller-timber markets are briefly mentioned, but this sentence shifts the focus to weighing lower profits against ecological benefits. That tradeoff has not been developed. The recommendation is about reducing fire risk, not deciding whether timber companies' returns should outweigh it.
- E
We are not told that the system is prohibitively expensive or unlikely to be adopted. Those new claims would undermine the proposal on grounds the writer has not supplied.
More Application questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Application questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.