PrepTest 147, Section 3, Question 6
In the last half-century, firefighters in North America(454 more words not shown)
It can be inferred from(33 more words not shown)
- Aa viable means(15 more words not shown)
- Ban essential component(15 more words not shown)
- Cbeneficial to forests(9 more words not shown)
- Dcurrently too extreme(12 more words not shown)
- Epolitically infeasible given(9 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
All lightning-caused fires, regardless of conditions? That goes beyond the recommendation. The writer allows these fires to burn under sufficiently wet conditions to limit the danger of widespread harm (paragraph 3). Remove that condition, and a fire could burn through the very fuel buildup that makes current forests vulnerable.
What we’re looking for
Our prediction is that this blanket policy is too extreme, not that the writer opposes allowing any natural fires.
Working the answers
- A
The proposed route back to low-intensity fires includes controlling fuel and choosing suitable conditions. Allowing every lightning-caused fire to burn could instead produce a devastating fire in a vulnerable forest.
- B
Allowing some natural fires under the stated conditions is part of the plan. Allowing all of them is not an essential component; that removes the safeguard.
- C
The distinction is not old forests versus young forests. Large fires can reach the crowns of centuries-old trees too, so an old forest is not automatically protected under this policy.
- DCorrect
Existing fuel buildup and unfavorable conditions could turn a lightning-caused fire into the destructive event managers want to avoid. The policy ignores the limit that makes allowing these fires appropriate in the recommendation.
- E
Political feasibility and public perceptions are not discussed. The objection we can support concerns the risk of damage, not whether voters would approve.
More Application questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Application questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.