Passage Mapping -
Paragraph 1 - Main Idea (Introduction to Prescribed Burning as a way to mitigate wildfires)
Paragraph 2 - Main Idea ( Additional benefits of Prescribed Burning other than wildfire mitigation like aesthetics, pest control etc)
Question 1:
1. The passage suggests that
( CR + RC ---> Inference / Must Be true)
A. homeowners should avoid forested areas when choosing a place to live.
Nope, cannot find any support for this conclusion.
B. prescribed burns are not needed in grassland or coastal plain areas where trees are not concentrated.
This can be inferred if we assume that the passage addresses CONCENTRATION OF TREES. But it may or may not be true.
C. aesthetic results should be the guiding principle of prescribed burning.
Not at all. It does mention aesthetic results as a positive effect of Prescribed Burning but not that it should be the main reason to perform Prescribed Burning.
D. because prescribed burns can become uncontrolled burns, evacuation of affected areas should precede any prescribed burns.
The passage never states that Prescribed Burning can become uncontrollable. It suggests quite the opposite.
E. careful practices by logging companies would reduce the danger of catastrophic wildfire.
YES! Supported by passage 1 "...and logging practices can exacerbate conditions when unsellable lumber debris is scattered or, worse still for firefighters, piled and abandoned." Logging Practices can be logically performed by Logging Companies. Current practices by logging companies are suggested to be the reason for current catastrophic wildfires. CORRECT!
Question 2
2. What function does the second paragraph perform in the passage?
(This can be answered by glancing at the passage map)
A. It explains that prescribed burns control pests and increase biodiversity.
This is a part of Paragraph 2, not the main idea/ function of the paragraph.
B. It describes conditions under which prescribed burns may safely be carried out so foresters and area residents remain safe.
No. In fact this is hinted at in Paragraph 1.
C. It presents benefits of prescribed burns, thus adding a further argument to the need for prescribed burns.
Yes. Paragraph 2 expands on the need for Prescribed Burning by giving additional benefits for the practice other than controlling wildfires. CORRECTD. It persuades area residents to allow prescribed burns near their businesses and homes.
No. There is an underlying tone of persuading the reader on the benefits of the practice, however not specifically to homeowners/area residents.
E. It catalogues the plant and animal species that benefit from prescribed burns.
This is a part of paragraph 2 and not the function of the whole paragraph.
3. Which statement below, if added to the passage, would most likely convince homeowners whose houses are near the areas of prescribed burns to agree that such burns are necessary, despite the temporary declines in air quality and aesthetics?
(Classic CR + RC mashup ---> Strengthen)
Here the premise would be " Despite the temporary declines in air quality and aesthetics" and the conclusion would be "prescribed burns are necessary in (homeowners') areas".
The underlying assumption would be --> The homeowner's benefit from prescribed burning in some other significant way.
A. Well-managed burns protect seed trees while eliminating ground debris.
Protecting seed trees and eliminating ground debris hints at aesthetic management. However this may or may not impact homeowners.
B. Burning at a time of high winds and warm temperatures risks greater scorch damage to trees marked for preservation.
Trees that need to be preserved may or may not impact homeowners and their homes per say. What if they don't really care for preservation ? Too many piling assumptions.
C. Logging businesses can pile unsellable wood so that it is less of a hindrance to tractor plows working the area.
This addresses logging businesses being impacted and not homeowners.
D. If not burned off, piles of deadwood hinder the construction of fire lines that hold back advancing wildfires.
So if nothing holds back advancing wildfires, it can affect homeowners by burning their houses down? This does affect them and give them a reason to contend that prescribed burning is NECESSARY despite the reduction in air quality + aesthetics) - CORRECT
E. Prescribed burns are usually carried out several weeks before seed fall of the dominant species.
So P.B won't effect seed fall of the dominant species. Direct impact on homeowners? Maybe. Maybe Not.