PrepTest 158, Section 4, Question 12
The only effective check on grass and brush(47 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(12 more words not shown)
- AFire departments tend(15 more words not shown)
- BAreas subject to(18 more words not shown)
- CUnusually large, hard-to-control(19 more words not shown)
- DGrass and brush(16 more words not shown)
- EWhen vegetation is(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More fires, but less money lost? I would have expected the opposite.
We need to explain why long, severe droughts bring more grass and brush fires yet less total financial damage. It may be tempting to argue about whether rain really is the only effective check on these fires. But this question gives us that information and asks us to reconcile it with the damage figures.
One guess: perhaps the drought fires burn far from houses and businesses. Another: perhaps repeated fires leave less for the next fire to destroy. Imagine five fires striking a town. If the first destroyed everything, the next four couldn't destroy those same buildings again. That example suggests why counting fires alone may not tell us how much damage they cause, though it doesn't yet explain why drought periods would have lower damage overall.
What we’re looking for
I'm open to the answers here. We need something that explains the lower losses, not just a fact about why a fire starts.
Working the answers
- A
Less funding during droughts wouldn't explain less damage. If anything, having fewer resources to fight fires might make the low damage total more surprising. This points in the wrong direction.
- B
This compares places with many fires to places with few fires. The passage compares periods of severe drought with periods of more normal rainfall. Knowing that fire-prone areas have fewer people doesn't explain why those areas lose less money during droughts than during wetter periods. B resembles our initial location guess but never connects it to the relevant change in rainfall.
- CCorrect
The amount of vegetation matters to how large and hard to control a fire can become. A drought can leave less vegetation growing, and repeated fires can consume what is available. That gives the frequent fires less fuel with which to become huge, destructive fires.
During periods with more normal rain, more vegetation can be available. A fire may occur less often yet have enough fuel to become unusually large when it does occur. That's how fewer fires could produce greater overall losses. C supplies the missing distinction between the number of fires and their potential size; we don't have to claim that every drought fire is tiny.
- D
Lightning tells us how some fires start. It doesn't tell us why the financial damage is lower during droughts. The puzzle would remain even if we knew the ignition source of every fire.
- E
Vegetation growing back just as flammable, or more flammable, doesn't explain the lower damage. It could provide fuel for later fires rather than make them less destructive. We need the connection between drought conditions and reduced losses that C offers.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.