LR Question 17 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Ecologist: Forest fires, the vast majority of which are started…
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.
Recap: The question begins with “Ecologist: Forest fires, the vast majority of which are started”. It is a Sufficient Assumption question. Learn how to master LSAT Sufficient questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
More Resources for Sufficient Assumption Questions
- Conditional Reasoning Article: Learn about conditional statements.
- LR Diagrams Guide: Learn how to draw LR diagrams.
- Intro to Conditional Reasoning: Learn conditional reasoning basics.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Sufficient Assumption questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers sufficient assumption questions.
Hi, I don’t follow the reasoning on this. There is nothing in the prompt that suggests there is ever a legitimate reason to stop forest fires (“forest fires should be left alone”), in fact, the prompt speaks only of the benefits of forest fires for the forest ecosystem. Nonetheless, answer B says that there is, and that fire control can help the forest ecosystem.
Sorry for the late response! I understand your confusion.
The ecologist argues that forest fires are crucial for the benefit of the ecosystem, and humans should therefore not intervene. But what if there were other important reasons for controlling fires, like damage to human infrastructure or other nearby ecosystems? Surely, that would require human intervention. This weakens the argument.
So, B eliminates this weakness by specifying that the only legitimate reason to prevent or control forest fires is to protect the forest ecosystem. If forest fires benefit the ecosystem, and protecting it is the only valid reason for intervention, then the ecologist’s conclusion that fires should be left alone follows logically. Essentially, B reinforces the ecologist’s stance by excluding other reasons for human intervention.