#12 - The only effective check on grass and brush fires is

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Resolve. The correct answer choice is (C).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[Lauryn]

My reasoning for C: I originally picked C because I thought that having an additional cause of fires (lightning) during periods of normal rainfall would cause MORE fires to erupt than when this cause is absent during periods of severe drought. Furthermore, no evidence is presented that arson or human negligence varies across seasons. I now see that this might contradict the premise that there are "may more such fires" occur when rainfall is below normal. So more fires during the normal periods of rainfall could not be the cause of the financial damage because this would contradict a premise. Therefore C is actually incorrect.

I originally eliminated D because I thought one could argue that we do not know which conditions have more vegetation—the severe drought could be characterized by tons of flammable dry grass that hasn't quite died off since the last normal period. However, I guess this might be an instance of the LSAT expecting you to make the assumption that drought equals less vegetation? Thank you in advance for any clarity!

[Lauryn]

C & D are flipped in the previous post

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Lauryn,

We are in a resolve the paradox question, so by definition here we expect and need new information to solve this paradox. Let's start with the paradox itself.

Fact 1: The only effective check on fires is rain

Fact 2: Fires cause less financial damage during periods of severe drought (so little rain) than periods of normal rainfall.

We need to find something to address why the financial damage is less, even though we know rain is the only effective check on the fires. We aren't worried about the causes of fires as in answer choice (D). That wouldn't at all help us to understand why the financial cost is less during a period of drought.

Answer choice (C) on the other hand, does a great job at giving us an explanation. It's true that the only effective check on these fires is rain. But the biggest, baddest (and probably most expensive) sorts of fires occur only when there's something to burn--vegetation. The question does expect that you'll know that periods of drought are likely to times when there is not plentiful vegetation.

Putting the facts together with the stimulus, when we look at answer choice (C) we get something like this: The only effective check on the fires is rain, however, since the most costly fires require vegetation to burn, fires cause less financial damage during periods of severe drought.

Hope that helps!

[hershey15]

I ended up choosing C but want to make sure I understand why B is wrong. Is this because the stimulus refers to periods of time when there are droughts in presumably the same area?

[Robert Carroll]

hershey,

I think you are on the right track. If areas subject to brush fires are less densely populated, they might have less for a fire to destroy - but they'd have less for a fire to destroy all the time. So the stimulus's paradox, where less damage is caused when there's a severe drought, is left unexplained - those areas that are less densely populated don't become that way after a drought.

Essentially, the paradox is that the same area is damaged less when a fire occurs during a severe drought. Facts about an area that don't change when the weather and climate conditions change (like the density of population) can't explain that paradox.

Robert Carroll

[katnyc]

I chose chose E. i cannot explain why it is wrong. would you please explain this one because I am still not seeing how C is a better choice. Thank you

[Adam Tyson]

I'm going to toss the ball back into your court on this one, katnyc. What is it about answer E that DOES help to resolve the paradox? Does it explain why a brushfire in a drought causes LESS financial damage than one in a normally rainy period? That's the paradox here: in a drought, you would think the fires would be bigger and harder to control, running wild and causing more damage. But for some odd reason, they do less damage when it's very dry. We need a cause for that strange outcome. Does answer E tell you what's causing that? Give it some thought and let us know what you think!

[dimi.wassef@yahoo.com]

Why is A wrong?

[Adam Tyson]

I'm going to do the same for you as I did for the previous question, Dimi, and pass this one back to you. What is it about answer A that you think resolves the paradox? Why would fire departments getting less money during a drought lead to less financial damage caused by fires during droughts? Think that through and come back with your thoughts on it!