Q12 - The only effective check on grass and brush fires

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Explain a Result

Stimulus Breakdown:
No arguments in Explain questions so we just need the facts:
The only effective check on grass and brush fires is rain. If the level of rainfall is below normal for extended periods, there are many more brush fires. But, grass and brush fires cause less financial damage overall during long periods of severe drought than during periods of normal rainfall.

Answer Anticipation:
I use this formula for articulating the paradox in Explain questions: How come _______ , in spite of the fact that _______ ? For this set of facts, that generates: "How come grass and brush fires cause less financial damage during extended periods of severe drought, in spite of the fact that rain is the only check on grass and brush fires?" Well, maybe during extended periods of severe drought, the brush and grass that would otherwise burn dies off. That's certainly not the only possible explanation, but as long as I understand the paradox and what could explain it, I feel ready to hit the answers.

Correct answer:
C

Answer choice analysis:
(A) What does fire department funding have to do with financial damage? If anything, this would further the paradox because less resources for fire departments could result in unchecked fires, which do more damage. Eliminate.

(B) Population density? This could be tempting because densely populated areas have more structures and therefore would sustain more financial damage during a fire. But this fact is true in non-drought years and drought years alike. You can't explain a difference with a similarity. Eliminate!

(C) Hmm…this sounds like a contender. The biggest, hardest to control fires only happen when there's lots of vegetation to consume. Maybe during extended severe droughts, there isn't that much vegetation. Sounds like our prephrase.

(D) The cause of the fire doesn't explain the financial impact of the fire. Eliminate.

(E) This one is a little dense: When vegetation is destroyed, it's naturally replaced. That could have a financial component because it doesn't require investment to replace what was lost. But this is true in both drought years and non-drought years, and the "equally if not more flammable" piece doesn't relate the the financial aspect. Eliminate.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Like so many Explain questions, we’re asked here to explain why two things are different in an unexpected way. In comparative situations like this, only a difference can explain a difference, so eliminate any answers that would play out the same way in both instances being compared. Something that would impact drought years and non-drought years in the same way can never explain the difference between them!

#officialexplanation