In the last several years, wildfires (forest fires) have become more common in some countries around the world. While everyone agrees that these natural disasters can be dangerous, there is disagreement about whether to use firefighters and government resources to stop them. There are benefits to letting wildfires burn and go out by themselves, without human involvement, rather than trying to stop them immediately.
First, letting wildfires burn rather than stopping them can be environmentally beneficial. Wildfires burn away the thick undergrowth covering the floors of forests, which eventually allows more sunlight to reach the ground. Certain forest plants thrive only when fires have cleared the land of dense growth. Also, ash (the fine, powdery substance left after something is burned) mixes into the earth and provides much-needed nutrients for these plants. Additionally, burned-out trees provide good habitats for several types of mammals and birds.
Second, letting wildfires burn can keep firefighters from harm. In very remote areas- in places where there are large stretches of wilderness and no humans-firefighters are often tasked with stopping fires immediately after they start. In doing this, they risk serious injury and may even lose their lives. There is no good reason why firefighters should risk themselves to protect vast str where no other people are in danger.
Third, allowing wildfires to end naturally rather than fighting them will save large amounts of money. Recently, the United States spent nearly 2 billion dollars fighting fires. This money was used to pay firefighters and to pay for firefighting equipment, including aircraft and fire-extinguishing chemicals. If some wildfires were allowed to burn, the money the government would save could be put toward other.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific points made in the reading passage.
In the lecture, the professor casts doubt on the reading passage’s idea that letting wildfires burn naturally is more beneficial than stopping them immediately. The professor asserts that, despite some possible advantages, wildfires can be environmentally, socially, and economically harmful, so it is better to stop them as early as possible.
Firstly, the passage claims that wildfires benefit the environment by clearing thick undergrowth, allowing sunlight in, and enriching the soil with ash. By contrast, the professor asserts that wildfires can damage the environment by burning away important organic material that protects soil from erosion. As a result, the soil can erode and mix with ash, which then flows into nearby streams, blocking or changing the flow of water and reducing its quality.
Secondly, the author of the passage points out that sending firefighters to remote wilderness areas is risky and unnecessary since no people live there. However, the lecture notes that smoke from wildfires in remote areas can travel long distances and reach cities and towns. This smoke contains harmful particles and gases, which can affect people’s health, especially the young and elderly. Therefore, stopping the fires early helps protect public health.
Lastly, the reading states that letting wildfires burn saves the government large amounts of money on firefighting. On the contrary, the professor contends that wildfires can damage important wilderness recreation sites that support tourism. Restoring these damaged sites can be extremely costly. A recent study showed that the total cost of allowing wildfires to burn can actually exceed the cost of fighting them immediately.
会员福利内容准备中，丰富答题思路即将上线