#3 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Expansion

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14220)

SR, Must—Expansion. The correct answer choice is (C)

In response to this Expansion question, it can be helpful to revisit the closing paragraph in forming a
prephrase. Again, the author uses the final paragraph to suggest that land managers focus on causing
or allowing periodic small fires in controllable situations; the author closes the passage by asserting
that “once fuels are reduced,” maintenance burns can allow for greater control and less risk going
forward. This perhaps begs the question, “what about before those fuels are reduced?” If you don’t
happen to have a good prephrase, the correct answer choice must pass the Fact Test, and make sense
as an extension of the passage.

Answer choice (A): The author does not mention the specific danger of damage to developed
property or how to situate homes, so this would not be a logical continuation of the passage and
should thus be ruled out of contention.

Answer choice (B): Nowhere in the passage does the author predict resistance on the part of the
foresting community, so this answer choice would not logically follow the passage.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Again, the author closes the passage saying
that once the fuels have been reduced, maintenance burns every 15 to 20 years would allow greater
control and less large-scale risk, but before such fuels have been reduced, as this choice provides, the
risk remains.

Answer choice (D): In the third paragraph the author makes the point that there is a market for
smaller trees, but there is no mention or suggestion that smaller trees are likely to be less profitable.
As such, this choice does not seem to be a logical addition to the passage nor a likely contender in
response to this question.

Answer choice (E): This choice is not consistent with the tone relayed by the author throughout
the passage, There is no mention of restrictive costs, and the author is not pessimistic regarding the
prospects for implementation of the policy suggested.

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I wanted to determine why the answer was C and not B. Is B going too far? Please provide insight why one is better than the other. Cheers.

- Micah

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Hi mpoulson,

Thanks for your question. Generally speaking, we need a bit more input from you before we delve into a discussion of a particular RC question. Ultimately, it won't be us who are taking the test; it's you! Our goal is to help you cultivate the analytical ability to approach these questions on your own, which is why you need to help us help you first.

Here's what I'd like you to do:

1. Describe your approach to the question.

2. What exactly made the answer choices you have listed particularly attractive?
Thanks,

Stephanie

[mpoulson]

Hey,

Let me explain what I mean. Both B and C seem like logical answer choices based on the passage. I chose B because it seemed very logical considering that that not everyone was aware of the new forestry technique and generally new ideas which are counter intuitive are met with resistance. Yet, the answer is C which says that large devastating fires will still remain a threat. I can see support for this because the passage says the new practice will take time and less support for B because the passage doesn't explicitly discuss the forestry feelings about the new technique. Yet, I wanted to be sure that this was the reason B was wrong. Please let me know if this is on the right track or off.

Micah

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Micah,

Great analysis on this one. You got it down to two contenders, and then you were able to go back and reason through what went wrong. B actually does tell us how foresters feel; look to line 4-6. Foresters are increasingly aware of the dangers. That helps to drive home that B can't be the correct answer.