Logical reasoning PrepTest 115 · Section 4 · Question 17

Incorrect. Biological diversity is broader than anything the stimulus talks about (which just discusses some types of biological diversity). The stimulus also doesn't establish that biological diversity is something to be strived for, so this answer falls short of justifying a recommendation against human intervention in natural forest fires.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Forest fires are natural and can help a forest flourish through a variety of means, so they shouldn't be prevented.

Answer Anticipation:
Let's talk about how much we summarized the stimulus here—why, and what to focus on.

Here, the conclusion makes a recommendation—it says that we "should" let forest fires burn themselves out. When a conclusion makes a recommendation, we should look for two things in the premises—the criteria by which the proper course of action will be decided, and a discussion of that criteria for the recommended action.

Here, the stimulus does discuss—at length—the benefits of allowing a forest fire to burn itself out naturally. However, it's missing the other part—the criteria by which we measure that benefit against other potential downsides or courses of action.

Here, the short version of the benefit is that it helps forests flourish. However, the argument never establishes that helping forests to flourish is the relevant criteria for fire control policy. Maybe protecting housing is more important, or protecting certain animal species.

Since this argument fails to establish that criteria, the correct answer will, and we don't need to understand all the details of the benefit as long as we understand the broad strokes and can look for an answer that establishes it as the relevant consideration.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes the criterion allowing the conclusion to be reached. If the only thing that could justify intervening in forest fires is the protection of the forest ecosystem, then the fact that forests require fires to flourish would guarantee that there is no justification for humans to intervene. This answer thus justifies the recommendation in the conclusion by showing the detail about forest fires raised in the premises is the criterion by which that recommendation can be made.

Key Takeaway:
Always use the conclusion to guide you through a complicated stimulus! The more you can home in on the relevant information and ignore the extraneous details, the more likely you are to find the correct answer and the less likely you are to fall for a trap that's based on that extraneous info.

Incorrect. This answer cuts against the conclusion which doesn't make exceptions for certain types of fires, so it doesn't justify that conclusion.

Incorrect. How humans view forest fires doesn't justify any specific policy towards putting them out.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of "other predators" in the stimulus, and the recommendation is to not intervene in something that could prevent the threats that are identified.