Question

read this letter from a member of the us congress about a prescribed fire that got out of control. which is the best rebuttal to this anti - burn viewpoint? key details a prescribed burn turned into an out - of - control wildfire covering thirty - two square miles. the public is concerned because of air quality issues and loss of tourism. the forest services handling of the prescribed burn is questioned. air quality is often affected by controlled fires. tourism is not of great concern to the forest service. without the controlled fire, the tourist season would not have been affected. without the controlled fire, more fuel may have built up, leading to greater damage.

Explanation:

• Option 1 supports the anti - burn viewpoint by highlighting a negative aspect (air quality) of controlled fires.
• Option 2 is not relevant as it doesn't address the main issue of whether the prescribed burn was beneficial or not.
• Option 3 also supports the anti - burn viewpoint as it implies the controlled fire was bad for tourism.
• Option 4 provides a counter - argument. It suggests that despite the current problem (the fire getting out of control), the long - term benefit (preventing more fuel build - up and greater damage) of the controlled burn concept is valid.

Answer:

Without the controlled fire, more fuel may have built up, leading to greater damage.