QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: Humans should not intervene to stop forest fires
REASONING: Forests are well adapted to fires, and are worse off if fires are prevented.
ANALYSIS: The argument actually makes a very good argument that stopping forest fires will hurt forests.
…but would you agree if your house was on the edge of a forest? There may be other reasons to put out fires.
___________
- We already know that diversity is harmed when humans prevent forest fires. This adds nothing new.
- CORRECT. If ecosystem protection is the only legitimate concern then we should not put out forest fires. That way, forest ecosystems will be better off.
- The stimulus is actually talking about all forest fires. But even if we should put out fires started by campers: why does this prove our conclusion that we shouldn’t put out other fires.
- This would explain why we treat forests so badly. But how does it prove that we should pay attention to the needs of the forest and stop putting out fires?
- We’re trying to prove that we should not intervene to stop the threat of fire, not insects.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply