Text 1: Ecologist Park argues that prescribed burns are essential to Western U.S. forest health. Decades of fire suppression have left forests choked with dead wood and dense undergrowth, fueling the catastrophic wildfires of recent summers. Carefully controlled burns, Park argues, restore the conditions in which forests evolved.
Text 2: Ecologist Singh agrees that prescribed burns can reduce fuel loads but raises practical concerns. Burn windows are short, smoke affects nearby communities, and a burn that escapes can become the very disaster it was meant to prevent. The policy is sound in principle, Singh argues; implementation has been the difficult part.
Both authors would most likely agree that
- A
fire suppression has had no effect on forests.
- B
wildfires are not occurring in the Western United States.
- Ccheck_circle
prescribed burns are a useful forestry tool in principle.
- D
prescribed burns are unnecessary.
Explanation
Both accept prescribed burns as useful in principle; they differ on implementation. A is shared. B, C, and D contradict at least one author.