#17 - Ecologist: Forest fires, the vast majority of which

[alex.r.berson@gmail.com]

Hi there,

Although I took a look at the explanations above, how (B) is right over (A) is still confusing to me...the stimulus is concluding that human intervention in controlling forest fires is ill-advised and shortsighted, and their argument is because it interferes mother nature working her magic. (A) seems to make that connection between the damage human beings are doing when intervening and the rest of the stimulus because it's saying that yes, human intervention tends to reduce biodiversity which is the author's claim about letting fires burn naturally.

Help!

[Adam Tyson]

Answer A is just too weak to justify the conclusion here, Alex. So what if human intervention "tends to" have that effect? Is that the case for forest fires, or only for other natural processes? Even if it refers to forest fires, does that prove that all forest fires should be left alone? Or only that when we put them out, there might sometimes be some negative consequences?

Justify the Conclusion answers need to be very powerful, because they have to completely prove the conclusion is true. Might answer A strengthen the argument a little bit? Yes, but it's not doing enough to guarantee the conclusion.