The clearing of shrubs helps reduce the expenditure on firefighting

Question

The clearing of shrubs helps reduce the expenditure on firefighting efforts by greatly reducing the occurrence of forest fires. Yet, savings in firefighting expenses amounts to only one-third of the expenditure required to regularly clear away shrubs. Therefore, this practice is not economically justifiable.

Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the conclusion above?

A. Effective fire prevention presupposes the occurrence of fires from a range of causes, and detection of all causes is costly.
B. The cost, per forest, of clearing away shrubs would remain the same even if it was a large scale, regular practice.
C. Ideally, economics should not be the dominant consideration in matters of firefighting.
D. Forest fires cost relatively little in immediate firefighting efforts but the damage they cause leads to other types of large scale economic costs. 
E. The overall savings in firefighting resources achieved by some fire prevention measures are smaller than those achieved by other measures.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

Eisha30 · Answer

I think the correct answer is D forest fires cost little in immediate firefighting but cause large-scale economic damage.

This introduces a new economic factor:

Even if firefighting savings are small, preventing fires may save huge economic losses such as:
 • timber loss
 • environmental damage
 • infrastructure damage
 • tourism loss

So shrub clearing might actually save much more money overall

Dereno · Answer

The passage speaks about fire fighting efforts and the expenditure incurred in clearing the shrubs , which is believed to cause fire destructions.

Given that: Fire fighting expenditure = (1/3)* Clearing shrubs.

Therefore,  clearing shrubs = 3* Fire fighting expenditure .

Hence, the practice of clearing shrubs is NOT economically justifiable.

We need to weaken it ? So find an option which says, the expenses is less, or something supporting this particular aspect.

The option which clearly aligns with the original theme is:  Option D

D.  Forest fires cost relatively little in immediate firefighting efforts but the damage they cause leads to other types of large scale economic costs.

Fire fighting expenditures < Clearing shrubs < large scale economic damage caused.

so, this justifies the expense spent in clearing shrubs not a waste, but actually saves a lot of money.

egmat · Answer

Let's break this argument down piece by piece.

The argument's structure: 
-  Premise 1:  Clearing shrubs greatly reduces forest fires.
-  Premise 2:  The savings in firefighting expenses are only  one-third  of the cost of clearing shrubs.
-  Conclusion:   Therefore , clearing shrubs is NOT economically justifiable.

The conclusion seems logical at first glance: you spend  $3  to save  $1 , so it's a bad deal. But notice something critical — the argument ONLY counts savings in 'firefighting expenses.' What if forest fires cause OTHER economic costs beyond just firefighting?

That's exactly what  Answer D  points out. Forest fires don't just cost money to fight — they destroy timber, homes, wildlife habitats, tourism revenue, and much more. These 'other types of large scale economic costs' could be enormous. If you factor those in, the total economic savings from clearing shrubs could easily exceed the cost of doing it.

Imagine this with numbers:  Clearing shrubs costs  $300 . It saves  $100  in firefighting. Looks bad, right? But if it also prevents  $500  in property damage,  $200  in lost timber, and  $100  in other costs, the total savings are  $900  — triple the cost. Suddenly, it IS economically justifiable.

Why the other answers fail: 
-  A:  Talks about fire detection costs — irrelevant to the shrub-clearing calculation.
-  B:  This actually slightly supports the conclusion by saying costs won't decrease with scale.
-  C:  Says economics shouldn't matter — but the argument IS about economics, so this doesn't weaken the economic conclusion itself.
-  E:  Compares shrub-clearing to other measures — but that doesn't tell us whether shrub-clearing itself is justified.

Key takeaway:   When an argument concludes something is not 'economically justifiable,' always check whether ALL relevant economic factors have been considered.  A narrow cost comparison can be blown apart by showing there are significant costs or benefits that were left out of the calculation.

Answer: D

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Video explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0CdGK_EnDU

The clearing of shrubs helps reduce the expenditure on firefighting

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The clearing of shrubs helps reduce the expenditure on firefighting

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards