PT158 S4 Q12 ExplanationThe only effective check on

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Deepens Paradox9% picked this

   Fire departments tend to receive less funding during periods of severe drought than during periods

   If fire departments receive less funding during drought, their capacity to fight fires is reduced. With more fires occurring AND less firefighting capability, total damage should be even higher during drought — making the paradox harder to explain, not easier. A resolve-the-paradox answer must make both facts simultaneously sensible. This answer adds another factor that should increase drought-year damage, pushing in the wrong direction.

   9%
2. B

   Static Fact29% picked this

   Areas subject to grass and brush fires tend to be less densely populated than areas where there

   Whether fire-prone areas are less densely populated is a fixed characteristic of the landscape — it does not change between drought and non-drought years. The paradox is specifically about why damage differs depending on rainfall conditions. A static fact that applies equally in drought and normal years cannot explain a difference that exists only between those conditions. Even if fewer people live in fire-prone areas, this would reduce damage in both drought and non-drought years equally, leaving the relative difference unexplained.

   29%
3. C

   Correct52% picked this

   Unusually large, hard-to-control grass and brush fires typically occur only when there is a large amount of vegetation

   Why this is right

   This answer resolves the paradox by identifying a single factor — vegetation — that explains both observations. Large, hard-to-control fires require extensive vegetation as fuel. During drought, vegetation is sparse and dry. The dryness makes fires ignite easily (explaining the higher frequency), but the sparseness means each fire has little fuel to consume and stays small (explaining the lower total damage). In contrast, during years with normal rainfall, vegetation is abundant. Fires start less frequently (conditions are wetter), but when they do start, they have enormous amounts of fuel available. These less frequent fires can grow into massive, devastating blazes that cause far more total damage than many small drought fires combined. The same condition — drought — that makes fires more likely also makes each fire less destructive. Both facts are simultaneously explained.

   Skill tested: Paradox · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   52%
4. D

   No Impact5% picked this

   Grass and brush fires that are not caused by human negligence or arson tend to

   The cause of ignition — whether lightning, negligence, or anything else — does not explain why more fires produce less total damage. The paradox is about the relationship between fire frequency and total destructiveness, not about what starts the fires. Even if all drought fires were started by lightning and all non-drought fires by negligence, we would still need to explain why more fires lead to less damage. The ignition source has no bearing on how much damage each fire causes once it starts.

   5%
5. E

   Undermines Resolution6% picked this

   When vegetation is destroyed in a grass or brush fire, it tends to be replaced naturally by vegetation that is

   If destroyed vegetation is replaced by equally flammable material, then the total fuel supply does not decrease during drought — it just changes form. Without a reduction in fuel, there is no mechanism to explain why drought fires are individually less destructive. If anything, this answer deepens the paradox by suggesting fuel levels remain constant despite the drought, leaving the lower total damage unexplained. The correct resolution (C) works precisely because drought reduces available vegetation. This answer contradicts that mechanism by suggesting the fuel supply is replenished with equally burnable material.

   6%